Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Scottish TUC and Scottish Council (Meeting)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Scottish Council (Development and Industry).

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): I met representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress and of the Scottish Council on 8th December and I will be ready for a further meeting when this would be helpful.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Secretary of State aware that some of us on the Opposition side attended a youth conference convened by the STUC and that at that conference, which was well attended, we were told that in London and the South East there are 210 jobs for every 100 youths wanting jobs, whereas in Scotland there are 100 youths to every 10 jobs? Is he aware that the situation is serious, and that unless there is an upsurge of jobs for the male population in Scotland the youth of our country will be lost for ever?

Mr. Campbell: This has been an extremely serious situation, to which I have referred in the House on many occasions. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome, with me, the improving trend since last March in the unemployment figures.

Mr. Baxter: Hon. Members welcome any discussions with the Scottish trade

union movement and the Scottish Council, but does the right hon. Gentleman realise that leadership comes from the top and not from the rank and file and that in Scotland we very much require leadership from the top, from the Secretary of State? That is absolutely imperative.

Mr. Campbell: I agree. I thought at first that the hon. Gentleman was referring to the STUC and the Scottish Council. I am sure that the importance of leadership applies to all bodies.

Mr. Ross: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman was not referring to the leader in today's Glasgow Herald. Was the meeting to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) referred the one at which the Secretary of State was unable to give satisfaction to the STUC about the £400 million investment programme for steel in Scotland, in respect of which we are still awaiting an answer, not having been able to obtain satisfaction from the right hon. Gentleman or from the Department of Trade and Industry yesterday?

Mr. Campbell: The meeting I had with the STUC on the day in question discussed steel and the 10-year investment programme. I was not able then to give complete details of every minor investment that the British Steel Corporation proposed over the next 10 years, and I could not do so today. But I was able later to announce that the BSC plan includes a 25 per cent. increase in steel-making capacity in Scotland——

Mr. John Smith: Over the 10 years?

Mr. Campbell: Yes—whereas during the five and a half years the previous Government were in office the increase was only 0·2 per cent.

Economic Planning

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Economic Planning Council on the Scottish economy.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I presume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Scottish Economic Council of which I am chairman. The Scottish economy is regularly discussed at council meetings,


the most recent occasion being on 9th February.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State recall that there have been over 100,000 redundancies in Scotland since he took office? Has he nothing better to say than simply that things are under discussion?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is on a completely wrong point, because there were also many redundancies under his Government. One of the criticisms has been that modernisation did not take place as fast as it should have done in previous years. Modernisation must mean redundancies. The important point is whether there are job losses or job gains. I am glad to say that in the period when I was a Minister in the previous Conservative Government——

Mr. John Smith: What about this one?

Mr. Campbell: I am coming to that. When I was a Minister in the previous Conservative Government the gains considerably exceeded the losses in jobs, though there were redundancies. That has not happened on this occasion, but we are now fortunately seeing a brighter future and I hope that we can attain what we attained before.

Mr. Grimond: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman set up a proper Scottish development authority? Why does he not follow the Norwegian example and take more from the oil companies and finance the authority partly from those royalties?

Mr. Campbell: For the simple reason that if it is a proper authority which has powers and money to spend I cannot set it up. That would have to be done by a Bill passed by Parliament, and time would have to be found for it. I want to act quickly. It is only a year and a half since the first oil was found in Scotland in commercial quantities. I intend to act quickly, and I have acted quickly. That is why the Scottish Petroleum Office was set up as quickly, and it will be acting very soon.

Mr. Hughes: The Secretary of State acted quickly when he took office, and that action led to massive redundancies and a change in Government policy. Is

it not late, two years after the event, to be saying that he is now taking action to create more jobs?

Housing Improvement Schemes

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance is extended to local authorities carrying out major housing improvement schemes in their area in respect of minimising the inconvenience and discomfort for the sitting tenants.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): The desirability of close consultation with tenants is emphasised in our discussions with local authorities about house improvement.

Mr. Hunter: Is the Under-Secretary aware that as regards many local authority housing schemes there is a great deal of friction between the authority and the tenant and that many tenants who have carried out improvements of their own do not like a uniform or standard improvement scheme? I recognise and appreciate that local authorities muss carry out these improvements speedily, but cannot the Minister do anything to avoid the friction which arises between the two parties?

Mr. Younger: I greatly appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. He is right in saying that this is a major problem in some improvement schemes. I will consider whether there is any further guidance which it would be helpful for me to give local authorities. In general this is a difficult problem which each local authority must be aware of and deal with in its own way. I will certainly give local authorities what help I can to enable them to he as understanding as they can.

Employment (School Leavers)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is now taking to assist in creating job opportunities for school leavers in Scotland.

Mr. Younger: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given on 31st January to a similar question by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).—[Vol. 849, c. 1331–33.]

Mr. Eadie: That answer smacks of complacency, because the Under-Secretary must know that 9,692 young people under the age of 18 are unemployed in Scotland. Will he tell us how many of them are male and how many female? As there is a great priority here, because the hopes and expectations of young people have been dashed, we are entitled to expect the Government to treat the matter with priority.

Mr. Younger: This is indeed a serious and worrying problem. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be as glad as I am that the figure he quoted of 9,692 compares with the figure of 12,438 at the same time last year. I am determined that anything that can be done to reduce this serious problem shall be done. We have taken massive steps to get expansion going in the economy, to achieve the best outlook there can be for young people.

Council Housing Approvals

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authority housing approvals were given in 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972.

Mr. Younger: The numbers are 26,806 in 1969, 17,061 in 1970, 19,376 in 1971 and 23,489 in 1972.

Mr. MacArthur: I congratulate my hon. Friend on reversing the appalling trend of a few years ago. Will he complete the picture by telling the House how many houses have been improved with improvement grants and how many have been built privately?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is indeed satisfactory that we have at last reversed the falling trend which was causing great concern. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that the private house completion programme was at its highest level at 11,835 last year and that in 1972 no fewer than 49,000 houses were given approval for improvements.

Mr. Lawson: The figure for the early part of 1972 must have been highly inflated because of the special inducements in the 1972 Act. What was the rate of approvals during the second half of 1972?

Mr. Younger: I shall be glad to get those figures for the hon. Gentleman. He is right to say that the special provisions of the Housing Finance Act attracted a large number of authorities to put in submissions quickly, as we intended they should. What is important is that submissions were put in and that councils are getting down to working upon improving houses.

Mr. Ross: Surely the Under-Secretary is aware that he has already given the figure of the number of houses submitted for approval by local authorities in the fourth quarter of 1972 and that it dropped to the lowest ever at 1,056. What Scotland is concerned about is a steady attack upon vile housing conditions, but we are not getting such an attack from the Government.

Mr. Younger: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Local authorities know that they have every encouragement—financial and in every respect—from the Government to build as many houses as they can for their needs. If the right hon. Gentleman knows of any authorities which are being held back by the present Government's policies, he will no doubt let me know; but there are not any.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Does my hon. Friend agree that in this sector, as in every other, we must do much better than simply reverse the deplorable record of the previous Government?

Mr. Younger: I agree. It is important that we provide homes of a more modern standard for the people of Scotland. There are various ways of doing this—local authorities, the Scottish Special Housing Association, private building and improvements. We are tackling every one of these categories and are having a considerable measure of success in putting matters right.

Rent Appeals

Mr Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many appeals against fair rents determined by the rent officers have been considered by the Glasgow Rent Assessment Committee in the last annual period for which figures are available; and in how many of these cases the committee increased, reduced or did not alter the rent officers' determination of rent.

Mr. Younger: Three hundred and forty references were dealt with during 1972 by the Glasgow Rent Assessment Committee. In 292 cases the committee determined fair rents higher than the rents registered by the rent officer, in eight cases they were lower, and in 40 cases the registered rents were confirmed.

Mr. Taylor: Do not these figures demonstrate clearly why a large number of tenants in Glasgow are reluctant to appeal to this rent assessment committee, which was established under the 1965 Act to be an impartial body to determine appeals by landlords and tenants? Is my hon. Friend aware that in the light of these figures all the people of Glasgow will be very glad indeed that the Secretary of State is to inquire into the Glasgow committee?

Mr. Younger: I know of my hon. Friend's very great concern with this problem. This system was set up by the previous Government some years ago and it has carried on unchanged from that time. I sympathise with the problems which are caused for some people when they face, after many years of very low rents, a steep increase. However, we now have for the first time rent allowance schemes which can protect tenants on low incomes. We have recently proposed to improve the rent allowance system substantially.

Mr. McElhone: I sympathise with the point expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), but does not the Minister agree that the situation will be further aggravated because under the new Act there is no longer any certificate of qualification for houses?

Mr. Younger: I do not think that that will aggravate the situation. Under the new Act we have, for the first time, rent allowances. The fact that they did not exist before created considerable hardship—something which I should have thought the Labour Government would have thought of at the time.

Mr. Millan: In this inquiry, with particular reference to the Western Heritable houses, will the hon. Gentleman get the figures for the relationship between rents fixed by rent assessment committees and rateable values, which in the Western Heritable cases are three to one, which seems to be out of line with decisions else-

where in Scotland? Is not the real answer in the Western Heritable cases, which affect the hon. Gentleman as well as myself, that these houses should be treated exactly the same as local authority houses—a proposition which the Government have refused to implement?

Mr. Younger: I have corresponded with the hon. Gentleman about this difficult problem. These are not local authority houses. They are being treated in exactly the manner laid down by the Labour Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member. What is important is that we should try to minimise any hardship to individuals; and this we have done for the first time in the Housing Finance Act 1972.

Mr. Lambie: I am glad the Under-Secretary has confirmed that a committee of inquiry is to be set up into the workings of the Glasgow Rent Assessment Committee. I hope that he will include other rent assessment committees. Does he recall that when I asked a year ago for a public inquiry into the working of rent assessment committees, in view of the background of bad decisions, he nearly jumped out of his skin with indignation that anyone would suggest that these committees were dominated by landlords and other people interested in high rents?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman would be well advised to look at the facts of the case. He will find that the personnel composing the rent assessment committees is exactly as it was under his Government who set them up. The Labour Government laid down—I think wisely—that Governments would not have the right to interfere with levels of rent established by the committees.

Mr. Ross: Surely the Under-Secretary appreciates that we have had experience of this problem since the first Act went on to the Statute Book and that when we discussed this matter in detail on the last Financial Provisions Act his Government—he was the spokesman—refused to change the personnel of the committee and refused to treat these houses as local authority houses, because they were subsidised by the Government. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) gave us no support then.

Mr. Younger: It would be a great pity if the right hon. Gentleman now expected us to change the people whom he appointed to these committees. If he regrets what he did, he will no doubt say why. As for treating these houses as local authority houses, they are not local authority houses and are therefore covered by the perfectly normal Statutes for such houses as they are.

Glenrothes (Civil Service Employment)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that Glenrothes is the only new town in Scotland without any Civil Service employment of a non-industrial nature; and what steps he intends to take to change this situation.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Glenrothes does in fact have a small element of non-industrial Civil Service employment though I am aware that it has not so far attracted large projects. The facilities which the new town can offer in this field are borne fully in mind when locations for new or transferred Government works are being decided.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman now studying the Hardman Report, which I understand is already in the Government's hands? Will he take into account the needs of East Scotland, particularly Glenrothes, although there has been considerable pressure from the West and Glasgow? In particular there is a strong case for getting population out of Glasgow rather than into Glasgow. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear this in mind when he considers the Hardman Report?

Mr. Campbell: The Government will in due course be considering that report fully. I am very much aware of the needs of new towns as well as of Glasgow. I have called a meeting for this coming Friday with the three chairmen of new towns which are currently receiving Government establishments and with the Lord Provost of Glasgow, so that we can compare experience on how best to receive the key workers who have to move. I have considerable experience, because I was a member of the Conservative Government involved in the decision to move the National Savings Bank to Glasgow.

Mr. John Smith: As the Hardman Report is now available, what is the Secretary of State doing to make sure that the maximum number of Civil Service jobs come to Scotland? He will no doubt be able to use all the experience he has acquired in the past, but will he tell us what he is doing at the moment?

Mr. Campbell: As I have said, the Hardman Report will be considered. I am doing all I can to point out the attractions of Scotland as a location for these offices. Scotland has received more than one-fifth of the work dispersed from London, and it is receiving more than two-fifths of the work currently awaiting dispersal. Because of the success of what is happening, I am pressing for more such offices to move to and be set up in Scotland.

Social Work (Scotland) Act

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to review the working of the Social Work (Scotland) Act.

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): The working of the Act is kept under continuous review. The Act itself provides a sound basis for the development of the social work services, which are expanding rapidly.

Mr. Ewing: Will the Minister seriously reconsider that reply and consider the setting up of a committee of inquiry to review in depth the working of the Act? Social workers in all spheres are showing serious concern about the working of the Act and the need to review it against the background of experience since 1969.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The kind of inquiry or review that the hon. Gentleman suggests is not necessarily appropriate, in so far as we are keeping an eye on it all the time, and proposals by the various social work authorities are under consideration for the future. There are certain deficiencies but I hope that in time and with experience we shall get these right.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Has my hon. Friend received representations that some sections of the social work departments


may not be receiving the same amount of consideration as others because of their size?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I accept that there are certain problems, for example the question of more effective supervision and the provision of residential facilities, particularly for younger people. We have identified these problems and we hope to deal with them as we go along.

Mr. Carmichael: My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing) is asking for something wider than simply looking at training and the provision of facilities for young people. Would it be possible for the Social Work Services Group to make a wide study of how the new services are working as against the old services and to publish the results?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As I said earlier, this is a continuing process. Nobody, particularly anybody within the Social Work Services Group, is complacent about what is happening. Certain aspects could be improved, but this is better done on a continuing basis rather than specifically.

Mr. David Steel: Pending any possible review of the working of the Act, does the Under-Secretary agree that the same importance should attach to the work of local authority social work committees and their directors as attaches to education committees? If so, will he emphasise that fact to the local authorities?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I certainly accept that this aspect of local authority work is one of the most important. In our dealings with local authorities we shall give the emphasis that we believe is needed to bring this home.

Mr. MacArthur: During his continuous review, will my hon. Friend pay special regard to the adequacy of provision of accommodation and care for mentally handicapped children?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, indeed. That is very important. It is encouraging that between 1970 and 1971 there has been an increase of 30 per cent. in the number of handicapped people who have received help from social work departments. That is one example of the good work that the social work departments are doing.

Economic Development

Mr. John Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in the light of the latest information on employment trends and the attraction of industry, he will make a statement on the future development of the Scottish economy.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: As I told the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) on 13th December, there has in recent months been a marked improvement in the economic outlook for Scotland. Oil developments in the North Sea and our entry to the EEC are particular reasons for optimism. But in the longer term the health of the Scottish economy will be largely determined by the success of our counter-inflation measures.

Mr. Smith: Is the Secretary of State aware that one cause of pronounced pessimism will be the withdrawal of the regional employment premium in 1974, with a loss to the Scottish economy of £40 million a year? How is the Scottish economy supposed to sustain the sudden loss of £40 million?

Mr. Campbell: There are differing opinions about the usefulness of that particular measure—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I hear that, too, in Scotland, but the regional employment premium is not due to be phased out until September 1974. The Government have introduced this year a new and very successful combination of incentives, and we shall be continuing to watch for what is likely to be most needed as September 1974 approaches.

Mr. Brewis: Would it not be a good idea for Scottish Labour Members of Parliament to be represented in the European Parliament and to back up their Conservative colleagues in trying to get money for Scotland from the EEC regional programme?

Mr. Campbell: That is a very relevant question. It is one not for me but for the Labour Party.

Mr. Eadie: As the right hon. Gentleman has told us that he is apprised of the employment prospects in Scotland and is optimistic, will he say what the reduction in unemployment is likely to be in the next two or three months?

Mr. Campbell: I was speaking of the economic situation when I said in my original answer that the signs were optimistic. I have already said today, and I repeat, that the unemployment trend has been favourable since last March, and I hope that it will continue to be.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Has my right hon. Friend established from the Common Market whether, in the event of our wanting to discontinue REP, the Common Market will permit us to do so?

Mr. Campbell: That is one point that would have to be considered—whether it would be appropriate. What we have already announced certainly is consistent with our Common Market obligations.

Mr. Ross: Will the Secretary of State take us into his confidence and tell us who, or which body, in Scotland is in favour of the withdrawal of REP?

Mr. Campbell: Not without notice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Opposition Members are simply playing politics.

Mr. Dalyell: Name one body.

Mr. Campbell: If hon. Gentlemen opposite are in touch with people in industry and commerce in Scotland and those who are thinking of moving in, they will know that opinions have been expressed that that £40 million could be spent much more beneficially in other ways.

Land Prices

Mr. McElhone: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average price of an acre of building land in Scotland, and in Glasgow in particular, in June 1970 and for the latest available date.

Mr. Younger: This information is not available, as these particular statistics have never been collected or kept.

Mr. McElhone: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a very disappointing answer? One is getting very disturbed at the lack of information on these matters concerning Scotland. Figures exist for England and Wales. May I tell the Minister——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may not tell the Minister. He may ask a question.

Mr. McElhone: Can I put it to the Minister that——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The usual phrase is "Is the Minister aware?".

Mr. McElhone: The trouble is that one is so disgusted at the lack of information. Is the Minister aware that it is rather distressing that these figures are not available for Scotland when they are available for England and Wales? Is he further aware that I checked only an hour ago with my local authority and with a leading private builder who both told me that on a very conservative estimate the figures for land prices have gone up by at least 75 per cent.? I am not talking about the recent extortionate figure in Aberdeen. Does not the Minister agree that it is time the Government stopped misleading this House and the country about these prices?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman should beware of expecting too much from a figure of the sort he has mentioned. It would depend very much on what land it was, what average was taken, whether the land was for the building of houses or for industrial building, whether it included land in city centre sites and so on. I do not think such a figure would be very meaningful. However, the question of land prices causes great concern to many people. It is interesting to note that there have not in fact been significant increases in site values as a proportion of the average price of a new house in Scotland over the past five years. We will keep this matter under very careful review.

Mr. Ewing: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many millionaires have been created in Scotland recently as a result of land speculation? If he does not know, will he find out and then tell the House?

Mr. Younger: If I were able to find out how to become a millionaire, I probably would not still be here.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister conduct an urgent review to establish the facts?

Mr. Younger: I do not think that a review of land prices as such would be of value, but I do think that this is something that should be watched very carefully to make sure that land prices do not form an increased part of the price of new homes.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Strang.

Mr. Ross: In view of the last answer——

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will call the right hon. Gentleman, but I deprecate supplementary questions from two Members from the Opposition Front Bench on one Question. Mr. Ross.

Mr. Ross: No; never mind.

Oil Developments (Land Protection)

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Government's overall policy towards the need to protect the coast and countryside from damage by the oil industry; and if he will make particular reference to the discussions he has had with Shetland County Council on this matter.

Mr. Younger: Our objective is to achieve the right balance between develepment and conservation, and the existing planning machinery properly used ought to do this. As my right hon. Friend has announced, he has commissioned a study of the coast to be carried out jointly by the Countryside Commission for Scotland, the Nature Conservancy and his Department's consultant landscape architect. I and my officials have discussed with Shetland County Council a number of major issues, but not specifically the protection of the coast and countryside.

Mr. Strang: Does the Minister accept that with proper planning there need be no conflict between maximising the number of oil jobs on the Scottish mainland and preserving our beautiful countryside? The people of Scotland are not prepared to see their environment irreparably damaged by irresponsible bargains struck between land speculators and oil supply companies. For that reason, many of us are in sympathy with the proposals put forward by Shetland County Council.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I do not think I will comment on the proposals by Shetland County Council at this stage as they may possibly come before a parliamentary commission and that would be the time for them to be discussed. But I agree with the hon. Member, and I have been emphasising this frequently to local planning authorities in recent months, that they have controls or powers to ensure that only what they regard as right developments take place in their areas. I agree with the hon. Member that they have powers to prevent irresponsible development if it should be proposed.

Mr. Grimond: It is well known that Shetland County Council decided to promote an order some time ago and we are grateful to the Scottish Office for such assistance as it has given in this matter. Will it be borne in mind, however, that though it is absolutely essential to control developments—and of course we wish to protect the environment and the social fabric of the islands—those of us who for a long time have sought to have alternative sources of employment do not want it to be thought that we are not aware that these developments might provide useful employment for young school leavers, for instance, who at the moment have to move away from the islands altogether, both Orkney and Shetland, to get work?

Mr. Younger: I am thoroughly in sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman says. It is most important that we should not hold up developments of the right kind. In my opinion the planning powers which are available are adequate to ensure that no development which would be harmful takes place if a local planning authority does not wish it to do so.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Would my hon. Friend agree also that there is need for an overall view, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State showed by instituting the overall study to be undertaken by the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy? This study is very urgent. Can my hon. Friend give any indication when it will report?

Mr. Younger: It is not envisaged that a report as such will be produced. The


two bodies are trying to do a survey of the facts of the case and will then give advice on them which my right hon. Friend and all concerned will consider.

Mr. Maclennan: Can the Minister say that the Secretary of State will not hold up any applications for planning permission which may be forthcoming, particularly one which may come from my constituency in the case of Chicago Bridge Company in connection with the proposed development at Dunnett Bay? Would that be considered in the expectation of receiving the results of the survey to which the hon. Gentleman has referred?

Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend has been most anxious at all times not to hold up planning decisions of this sort. Indeed, he has a very successful record in this respect because of the number of very swift planning decisions that have been taken. I will certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said. We certainly would not wish to hold up any decision in his constituency.

Fishing Rights (Hydro-Electric Board)

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will instruct the Highlands and Islands Development Board to secure for the benefit of the public such fishing rights as may be disposed of within its area by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board in pursuance of its policy of divorcing itself of responsibility for activities not directly related to its own function of generating and distributing electricity.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This may become a matter for discussion with the board, but there is no situation at present appropriate for this.

Mr. Johnston: The Minister will be aware that the hydro board sold fishings in Inverness-shire and is thinking of doing so in Ross and Cromarty. This would represent an occasion for such discussions. Does the hon. Gentleman by any chance remember the Hunter Report? I know that it was a very long time ago but clearly the previous Secretary of State lost it. Has the present Secretary of State found it again? If so, when is action proposed? Perhaps the

hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity of assuring us in this connection that the appointment of Sir Douglas Haddow has not presaged the merger of the boards.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman should be careful about his facts. I know there has been talk about waters in Ross and Cromarty which the hydro board controls but so far there have been no proposals by the board concerning the future of these waters. That must be remembered before one takes it any further.

Mr. Ross: What about the other part of the question?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am sorry I did not answer the point concerning the Hunter Report. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to a very good White Paper which the present Government produced.

Mr. Strang: Surely the Minister agrees that there is need to make more of our fishings in the Highlands available to local people and tourists. In view of the widespread resentment towards the hydro board's policy of selling off fishing rights to exclusive, private, wealthy interests, will the hon. Gentleman agree to have another look at this whole vexed issue?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I look forward to the lion. Gentleman's support of our White Paper concerning the future of fishings in Scotland, but I also note with interest his proposals about the nationalisation of croft land and sporting rights and fishings. What I would ask him to bear in mind is that it was his right hon. Friend who gave approval to the disposal of fishings by the board.

Oil Refineries

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent plans have been submitted to him for the development of oil refineries in Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have recently received, through Ayr County Council, an application by Oil Refining Services International (ORSI) Ltd. to build a refinary at Hunterston of an ultimate capacity of 24 million tons per annum, with a marine oil terminal to accommodate four tankers.

Mr. Douglas: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether he would not agree that it would be invaluable in the case of development of oil refineries in Scotland to undertake an impact survey when these refineries are proposed to see what effects such developments would have on the totality of the environment? Will he consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to be sure, in the case of these very speculative ventures, that money is very well tied up, and will he have an overall look at the prospects for Hunterston, not only in the light of the narrow oil refining prospects?

Mr. Campbell: I assure the hon. Gentleman on the latter point that such proposals are looked at from the point of view of Scotland as a whole. This is a planning matter. Therefore, I cannot comment on the merits of particular proposals. Under the planning Acts all considerations are taken into account. There are opportunities for objectors, and if there is disagreement the final decision must come to me to be taken in a quasi-judicial capacity.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is my right hon. Friend able to tell the House what would be the cost to the taxpayer in investment grants and subventions from the Industrial Development Executive for the ORSI plan and how many jobs would thereby be created?

Mr. Campbell: Not without notice, though I recognise that this is an important point. The kind of incentives and assistance which are now available under the Scottish Industrial Development Office are extremely helpful and not wasteful in their effects.

Mr. Ewing: This is a very important issue. Does the planning application contain an indication of the source of the oil that ORSI would refine if planning permission were given? For instance, would it be Gulf or North Sea Oil? This is very important.

Mr. Campbell: I was asked originally what recent plans had been submitted to me for the development of oil refineries in Scotland. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman all the detailed information,

but I will try to do so if he cares to write to me about it.

Mr. Lawson: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that this question might transcend the more limited question of the planning Acts as it is of such importance for Scotland and that it should be decided at his level, not on the basis of local considerations? Does he consider that Hunterston might be so important to Scotland over the years that this matter cannot be left to local considerations and that national considerations must transcend everything else?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. He is echoing exactly my planning decision of over two years ago when I decided to open Hunterston for industrial development but said that each individual project must be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. I think that covers the very point that the hon. Gentleman made.

Sir F. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how the siting of an oil refinery at Hunterston would be likely to affect BP's plans for the extension of its refinery at Grangemouth?

Mr. Campbell: No. I have noted some reports in the Press about it. My hon. Friend will have to consult the company about these plans.

Mr. Ross: First, bearing in mind that the Secretary of State has already laid down fairly detailed principles relating to developments at Hunterston, is it not true that further inquiries should not take so long? Secondly, and probably more important, does he realise that when his hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) asked what the grants would amount to, he replied, "Not without notice"? May I take it that he will state the actual amount of grants in any individual case?

Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman knows that if I were asked a particular question I should have to consider how much was public and how much was private information. It has always been the practice of Governments regarding commercial information and grants not to reveal them. Of course, I should reveal to the House as much as was proper to be disclosed.

Mentally Handicapped Persons (Staff Training)

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received a copy of the report "The Training of Staff for Centres for the Mentally Handicapped"; and what action he proposes to take on its recommendations.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, Sir. The report was published on 7th February and my right hon. Friend is now seeking the views of the bodies concerned on its recommendations. He will decide what action to take when he has received and considered them.

Mr. Steel: Does the Under-Secretary agree that this is a most important report, particularly the opening conclusions which indicate that we should abolish the category of children regarded as ineducable and that we should transfer responsibility for day care centres to education authorities? This is an important basic recommendation. I hope that the Government will come to a conclusion on it fairly soon.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This is an important report. I should like to pay tribute to Mr. Melville, the director of education in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, who chaired the committee, and his colleagues. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me at this stage to comment on detailed recommendations—not until we have received representations and views from the various bodies involved.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Are not paragraphs 59 and 60, which refer to changing the position in law of the ineducable child, at the heart of the report? Unless the Government indicate that they will legislate or will encourage legislation the report will not get very far.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that the report was published only a fortnight ago. It is far too early to come to a conclusion on it. We must consider people's views on it and come to a conclusion in the proper way.

Hunterston

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a further statement on developments at Hunterston.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 31st January.—[Vol. 849, c. 1345–6.]

Mr. Lambie: That is a very disappointing reply. Does the Secretary of State realise that the people of Scotland are fed up with his indecision and procrastination on these industrial developments at Hunterston? Is it not time that he carried out his promise and resigned as Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: Certainly not over this subject. I think that, with the sole exception of the hon. Gentleman, on the whole I have received congratulations in Scotland because over two years ago I took the decision to which I referred of opening up Hunterston for industrial development of a valuable kind for Scotland. I cannot do anything at the moment because these applications have not been properly processed. The applications before me are still subject to their promoters wanting to change them.

Sir F. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend tell us what has happened to the report of the Hunterston Development Corporation which we are also anxious to see?

Mr. Campbell: I understand that this study has now been completed. When it has been submitted, it is likely to be published after the company has seen it.

Suicides

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of deaths from suicide in each of the last five years; and how this compares with the rate in England and in other European nations.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Deaths in Scotland from suicide and self-inflicted injury in each of the years 1967 to 1971 numbered 391, 373, 362, 397 and 378, respectively.
International comparisons of these statistics are subject to considerable


reservations. The most recent we have indicate that the death rate in Scotland from this cause is slightly lower than the rate in England and Wales and well below the rates in most countries in Europe.

Mr. Dempsey: I thank the Minister for revealing those interesting figures. They indicate that we are at the bottom of the European suicide league. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very effective voluntary organisations with very laudable objects—for example the Telephone Samaritans, who work unceasingly and talk people out of taking their lives? To what extent do the Department or the local authorities liaise with these excellent people actively or financially, or both?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on putting this Question, which has elicited a most interesting statistic about the position of Scotland in the European league. I join him in paying tribute to the work done by the Telephone Samaritans. I assure him that there is very good liaison between the Telephone Samaritans and the social work departments in different areas. We pay a grant to the Telephone Samaritans which helps to encourage their development and the training of volunteers in a very important aspect of voluntary work.

Sir F. Maclean: Does my hon. Friend agree that these figures reflect great credit on the present administration?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is interesting that the figures for 1971, the first full year of the present Tory Government, show an improvement on those for the previous year. I go even further and point out that they demonstrate the great pleasantness of living in Scotland.

Water Requirements

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the extra amount of water which will be required in Scotland during the next 10 years as a result of the North Sea oil development.

Mr. Younger: The water boards have plans to meet known needs and most of the boards have ample resources on which they can draw to meet future needs. The North Sea Oil Development Committee

will be co-ordinating the development of this and all other infrastructure services for oil-based projects. It is not yet possible to make firm estimates for the new oil industry as much as 10 years ahead.

Sir J. Gilmour: In view of the present acute water shortage in various parts of Scotland, does my hon. Friend agree that there is doubt about whether the new regional authorities as recently amended will have adequate resources to provide the water we need? May not there be a need for a national water resource survey?

Mr. Younger: The precise nature of future water organisation is a matter to which we shall come in our deliberations in a certain Standing Committee with which my hon. Friend may be familiar. I shall not cover that now. The recent shortages in some areas have been due to the exceptionally low rainfall in certain areas. However, throughout most of Scotland there are ample supplies and reserves and I am confident that water boards have plans in hand to make adequate use of these.

Carstairs State Hospital (Transfer of Patients)

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the present arrangements for the transferring from the State hospital at Carstairs of patients who need further treatment before release; and whether he will set aside a semi-custodial wing in an existing hospital to care for such patients.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The present arrangements work well in most cases but a few patients, in the absence of suitable vacancies, have been awaiting transfer for fairly long periods, especially to mental deficiency hospitals. I do not think such patients should be transferred to a custodial wing in a single hospital. They are more appropriately catered for by medium security provision in National Health Service hospitals where they can be rehabilitated nearer their homes.

Mr. Brewis: May I first express my regret that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education is not here to answer this Question? I am sure we all hope that he will soon be back with us. Will my hon.


Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture pass on to him my view that there is a serious problem here at the moment? I thank my hon. Friend for his answer.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's interest in this matter, and I will pass his condolences to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education. This is a difficult problem. We are worried about these delays. In certain hospital board areas—for example, in the West region—greater provision is being made to meet the problem.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education to look at the length of time spent by patients in Carstairs, and perhaps he will look at the proposition that the imposition of unlimited time commitment of patients might be leading to treatment being less successful?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This is a rather different question. I shall take note of it and look into it.

Price Control

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what machinery he has established in the Scottish Office to implement the control function of the Price Commission.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: None, Sir. The need for such machinery is for the commission to assess.

Mr. Dalyell: How is it that the Secretary of State for Employment can reveal that he has the nucleus of the proposed Pay Board when there is no sign of an embryo Price Commission?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Price Commission is not the direct responsibility of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. William Price: Or of anyone else.

Dismissed Teachers

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for offering reinstatement and full compensation for wrongful dismissal to teachers who were dismissed from their employment for failure to register with the General Teaching Council, following

the judgment of the Court of Session that his predecessor was actingultra viresin changing the conditions of employment of teachers who already possessed the recognised qualification to teach.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have lodged an appeal and I am advised that until it has been decided the requirements concerning registration remain in force. Considerations of the kind which my hon. Friend has mentioned do not therefore arise at the moment.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Now that the Court of Session has decided that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was acting entirely improperly in requiring local authorities unilaterally to change the conditions of employment of experienced teachers in their employ, surely it is time that the Scottish Education Department stopped this witch-hunt against a small minority of teachers, recognised that they have been improperly dismissed from their employment and granted them the compensation to which they are due.

Mr. Campbell: I understand the feelings actuating my hon. Friend's remarks. However, Governments have seen it as their duty whenever doubt has been thrown by a court decision upon the interpretation of a Statute to have the decision tested by taking it to a higher judicial authority, in this case the Inner House of the Court of Session. That is what I have felt it right to do.

Mr. Sproat: How many teachers were dismissed as a result? Will my right hon. Friend also find out, if he cannot say now, how many have left the profession altogether and how many have emigrated to teach in schools abroad?

Mr. Campbell: I could not give those figures without notice. I will make inquiries and let my hon. Friend know.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.

Steel Industry Closures

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange to meet local authorities, affected


by future closures in the steel industry, to discuss his plans for their future.

Mr. Younger: In the White Paper on steel—Cmnd. 5226—we announced the setting up of a special reconstruction team under the direction of the Scottish Economic Planning Board, which will be responsible for identifying the measures needed to deal with the effects of the steel rationalisation programme. This important work will be under the supervision of my noble Friend the Minister of State. I have no doubt that in the course of its work the team will meet and consult the local authorities affected.

Mr. Mackenzie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. In the plans for the future of the steel industry it is said that prospective job losses in Scotland are not so highly concentrated in particular places. To those hon. Members who represent steel constituencies, this seems patently untrue. They are concentrated in particular communities. We hope that the Secretary of State will meet the local authorities and discuss with them the future of their areas.

Mr. Younger: I expect that my noble Friend will be doing very much what the hon. Gentleman has suggested. As for the impact of job losses, they are really causing great concern for certain areas. But if the hon. Gentleman likes to compare them with those in other parts of the United Kingdom, especially Wales, I think he will agree that it is fair to say that they are not so highly concentrated in Scotland as they are in some other areas.

Housing Finance Legislation (Implementation)

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those local authorities still refusing to implement the Housing Finance Act.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Alloa, Clyde-hank, Cowdenbeath, Cumbernauld and Saltcoats.

Mr. Sproat: Is it not a fact that a recent survey undertaken by Glasgow Corporation showed that of all its municipal tenants receiving rent rebates 83 per cent. would now receive more with the higher needs allowances under the Government scheme than previously? Is

not that even more true of Clydebank and the other places which my right hon. Friend has mentioned? Unless Clydebank councillors make up their minds quickly to pay the fine, has not the time come for my right hon. Friend to exercise his authority and take over the running of the housing department as the law requires?

Mr. Campbell: Glasgow is in fact carrying out the Act. But I saw the report in the Glasgow Herald indicating that estimates by Glasgow Corporation have shown that 83 per cent. of tenants at present receiving rebate will be better off when the new needs allowance comes into operation at the end of April. As regards Clydebank, I repeat that the council there is taking advantage of its tenants. For example, a family with two children and an income of £20 a week now pay a rent of £1·35. Under the Act that same family would have to pay only 6p a week.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that many hon. Members on the Opposition benches reckon that it takes great political courage on the part of Labour-controlled authorities to implement an objectionable Tory housing Act? Recognising that, would not it be better if the right hon. Gentleman used the procedure, since he wants to prove to the community the benefits of the Act, to take over these housing powers? Would not that be better than using court procedures resulting in fines and the possibility of martyrdom?

Mr. Campbell: I agree that for those whose political views are opposed to some of the provisions of the Act it requires courage to carry it out. I agree that those people are to be commended rather than those who are failing to carry out the law.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the procedures. I have followed meticulously as firmly and quickly as I can the procedures laid down in the 1947 Act. They require at this stage the matter to go before the court. That is where it is in the case of Clydebank.

Selective Schools (Glasgow)

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he has not yet


sent a reply to Glasgow Corporation in respect of its proposals relating to selective schools.

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now sent his reply to Glasgow Corporation on its plans for the abolition of selective schools; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I am continuing my consideration of the authority's proposals and I will announce my decision on them in due course.

Mr. Millan: These proposals have been with the Secretary of State since last October and they are basically similar to proposals lodged with the right hon. Gentleman no less than a year ago. Is not what we are witnessing here deliberate dilatoriness in breach of the right hon. Gentleman's statutory duty under the Education Act and a dishonest attempt to prevent the further extension of comprehensive education in Glasgow?

Mr. Campbell: No, Sir. These are very important issues and they involve the future of many children in Glasgow. The organisation is complex. The proposals which have been put forward are complex. They need very careful study. I am also greatly concerned that there should be adequate consultation with the parents and others concerned.

Mr. Carmichael: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has now accepted the principle of the abolition of selectivity as being quite definitely the overwhelming view of the elected representatives of the people of Glasgow in at least two elections? Is the right hon. Gentleman now suggesting that what is stopping his decision is that he is not happy about the rate of phase-out? If fie has accepted the principle and is merely concerned about the rate of phase-out, may we have an indication of the time for the phase-out of selective schools which he envisages being able to accept?

Mr. Campbell: I said in my original reply that I would be announcing my decisions when I have taken them, and that is the position.

Dyce Airport

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the co-ordination of his

Department and of those bodies responsible for the development of Dyce airport; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: Yes, Sir. As announced in the Press on 2nd December 1972, Aberdeenshire Planning Committee has granted the Civil Aviation Authority planning permission in principle for new terminal and ancillary facilities at Dyce. I understand that work necessary to allow the operation of jet aircraft on regular scheduled services from April of this year is in hand.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the optimistic nature of that reply is not reflected on the ground and that there seems to be considerable delay in providing the terminal facilities at Dyce to meet the tremendous growth in traffic there which is expected this summer? Can he do as much as possible to expedite matters?

Mr. Younger: I will certainly do anything I can to expedite it, but I am not aware of there being any delay. There has been a full examination. If this confirms the original proposals of the Civil Aviation Authority there will be no delay; and if new or modified plans were to emerge they would be processed with the utmost speed. I agree that it is important to get a quick decision, but it is also important to get the right one.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Grimond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order in connection with Question No. 36 which was originally put down to the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is, of course, a well-established custom of the House that Ministers may transfer Questions for which they have no responsibility. I would, however, make two points in regard to this Question.
First, I am asking only that the Secretary of State should pay a visit to Norway to study certain matters. The Prime Minister is constantly asked to pay visits to study various matters which may not be wholly his individual responsibility, except in so far as he is head of the Government.
Secondly, the Scottish Office has constantly taken some responsibility for the


terms upon which oil is exploited in the North Sea. Only today it was taking credit for the speed with which the Government have acted in this matter. Therefore, the Scottish Office cannot say that it has always denied any responsibility here.
This is a matter of peculiar responsibility in Scotland. Keen as I have no doubt the Norwegians would be to see the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Scotsmen and possibly the Norwegians would be much keener that our Secretary of State should go. We have a great deal in common with the Norwegians as a small country and are deeply concerned about the better terms which Norway has obtained for her oil than we have for ours. This is not simply and solely a question affecting Britain as a whole but is peculiarly a matter for the Scottish Office.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): Further to that point of order. The Question appeared on the Order Paper for the first time yesterday. Its subject matter, the terms for the exploitation of North Sea oil, is not within the jurisdiction of my Department. Much though I would like to pay a visit to Norway, I could not pretend to be responsible for that subject. As for Questions answered today, they have related to onshore installations—that is to say, to projects in Scotland with which I have been concerned and where planning permission and others of my functions touched upon them—but that is not the exploitation of the seabed 100 miles out to sea.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has raised this matter as a point of order and I will certainly consider it. The transfer of Questions is not a matter for the Chair but if I think that the conventions have in any way been abused I will certainly express my opinion on the matter when I have had time to consider it.

Mr. Grimond: I am most grateful, Sir.

AGRICULTURE (EEC MINISTERS' MEETING)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Joseph Godber): With permission, I should like to make a state-

ment on the meeting of the Council of Agricultural Ministers in Brussels this week.
The House will recall that agreement was reached last month that we should apply the common agricultural policy on the basis of a representative rate for sterling rather than our official parity. This rate was based on the average of market rates for sterling in the first two weeks of January. Since then, following the devaluation of the dollar, sterling has fallen below this representative rate in terms of the Community unit of account and the result has been an increase in import prices. However, the Council has now agreed on an amendment to the existing Community regulations which will provide for the introduction of monetary compensatory amounts for the United Kingdom—and for Italy, whose currency is also now floating.
In effect, these monetary compensatory amounts will take the form of additional refunds on exports from other Community countries to the United Kingdom and reductions on import levies on imports into the United Kingdom from third countries. The precise levels will now be worked out urgently by the Commission and the management committees. The calculations involved are complex but, once established, the rates will be subject to automatic adjustment if there are further movements of 1 per cent. or more in the value of currencies. The immediate application of these additional compensatory amounts will ensure that, so far as the main basic foods to which compensatory amounts and third country levies at present apply, there will be no increases in prices in the United Kingdom as a result of the latest currency developments.
Apart from this important decision, the Council had a further discussion on direct incentives for beef production. The Commission will be making further proposals which will take account of the experience which we and other member States have had in this field. We also secured agreement that our growers will benefit in full from the Community subsidy on herbage seeds from the 1972 crop.
At the request of the Commission the Council decided to defer consideration and implementation of Community farm price levels for one month. These will


now be considered at the end of March and implementation would begin from 30th April.

Mr. Shore: I think that the Minister would accept that what we are dealing with is a statement on the consequences of the further devaluation of the pound which has taken place in the last two weeks and the impact of that devaluation on the complex arrangements for Common Market prices. If I understood his statement correctly, what it appears this time to indicate is that the Common Market has changed its usual practice in relation to a currency which is devalued and that, instead of demanding that the Government of the currency concerned should impose levies, it has agreed this time to maintain the existing prices in the country concerned by increasing the amounts of subsidies paid out to Common Market food exporters, in other words, that there will be a further subsidy to French and other farm exporters.
If I am right in that, does this mean that there will be more competition now facing the British farmer in the prices that he has to face in the year ahead? Does it not also mean that the actual cost of the Community's farm budget is hound to increase and that therefore the British contribution to it will inevitably have to increase with it? If so, by how much?
In the last part of his statement, the Minister referred to the delay for a whole month in the announcement of the new Community farm price levels. Would he not agree that this has important implications for our own farm price review, which is clearly to be pushed forward by a further month? In his view, is there any serious possibility of M. Lardinois in the extra month actually sorting out the anomalies of the now extraordinarily complex system of subsidies, export restitutions and levies which the CAP is now practicising, or is it simply a period of time bought mainly with the purpose of helping the French Government get through a difficult general election?

Mr. Godber: No, I would not accept the last explanation. What has been arranged this week does not, as the right hon. Gentleman describes it, result

from the devaluation of the pound. This is a direct result of the devaluation of the dollar and the movement of currencies which followed. It was not only the pound that was affected. The pound and the lire among the European countries are those to which we are referring.
As for the changes which have been made, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that, last month, when I explained the changes which had been made then, I said that we made arrangements then that, if there were further changes, they would be dealt with by monetary compensatory amounts. I said that in reply to the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).
That is precisely what we are doing at this time. The difference is that on that occasion we had arranged merely for floating upwards those monetary compensatory amounts. Now the arrangement has been made flexible so that they can float in either direction—[Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Members find this amusing. It is very important that the arrangement should be fair and right, and that 1 per cent. movement is the way in which it should operate.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether this means that the farm budget will increase, and, if so, by how much. This will not, of itself, have any large effect on the Community budget. To the extent that it does, I should think that. if anything, it will benefit us slightly as a result of it. In other words, what we receive from the export restitutions will be slightly more than we shall pay in increased FEOGA contributions. That is the most information I can give.

Mr. Shore: Mr. Shore indicated dissent.

Mr. Godber: The right hon Gentleman may shake his head, but that is the information I have. It depends entirely on the quantities of our exports that flow in this way, because there is more than one currency involved here. The bulk of the advantage of this arrangement, I think, will go to Italy, but Britain will obtain a certain proportion of it. There is no question about that.
In so far as the home farmer is concerned, the delay in regard to new Community price levels will not affect, of itself, the British farm price review.


What will affect our arrangements are the arrangements under Article 54, which have not yet been finalised but which we hope to get finalised within the next week or two, but they will not delay the implementation. I hope to be able to announce the result of the farm review about the middle of March.

Mr. Charles Morrison: With regard to the point about beef, will my right hon. Friend recommend very strongly to the Commission our system of production grants for the encouragement of beef production? Have those ideas already been fed to the Commission? If so, what reaction has he received?

Mr. Godber: Yes. I have instanced what we do in the form of production grants for beef in this country, and there were several proposals put before us yesterday. One of them was somewhat similar to our methods. But I pointed out that there was insufficient information about the cost and effectiveness of these proposals. I hope, however, that within the next month or two, it will be possible to work out some sensible arrangement within the Community which will help to stimulate production without necessarily putting up the price to the consumer.

Mr. John Morris: Will the Minister try to simplify matters? First, has not the pound in reality been substantially devalued since it began to float? Secondly, does this mean that the cost to the housewife will he more or less? Thirdly, will it mean more or less price for the farmer?

Mr. Godber: if the hon. Gentleman is referring to the period since the pound originally started to float, in the statement I made last month, following the meeting last month, I pointed out that the representative rate, to which I have referred today, was about 9½ per cent. below the old unit of account rate. The unit of account rate was fixed at a time when the pound had floated upwards, so it was a substantial reduction from that. What has happened now is a reduction which will approximate somewhere between 5 per cent. and 6 per cent., as a further depreciation of the pound in relation to European currencies, although it is an appreciation in relation to the

United States currency. Therefore, it is very difficult to say precisely, coming in the middle of this, just what the effect on British food prices will be. But certainly so far as what was arranged yesterday is concerned, it will protect the British consumer rather than the other way round.

Sir Robin Turton: Did my right hon. Friend raise with the other member Governments the problem of the British egg market being flooded by Common Market eggs, and will not this problem be aggravated by the increased monetary compensatory amounts to which he has agreed?

Mr. Godber: The increased monetary compensatory amounts to which I have agreed will not directly affect eggs and poultry at this time because in regard to eggs and poultry they are related to the position of grain other than wheat, and wheat is the only one of the grains to which monetary compensatory amounts apply at present. Therefore, they will not have a direct effect in regard to eggs and poulty.
Regarding the first part of my right hon. Friend's question, I discussed informally with officials of the Commission yesterday the particular problems of British egg producers and warned them that we might find it necessary to invoke Article 63 if there is a clear distortion of trade.

Mr. Deakins: At what rate of exchange will the very heavy increased costs to United Kingdom farmers in 1972–73 be taken into account in the forthcoming Community agricultural forecast of prices for the coming year'? Is there not a serious danger that these very heavy increased costs will have been devalued in terms of the unit of account, which is the unit basis for the fixing of Common Market farm prices?

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman must be working under a misapprehension here. What we shall be doing in regard to the United Kingdom will be related to internal values. In so far as the units of account are concerned, this will be in relation to Community price levels. We are raising British prices towards Community price levels over a five-year period. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This has always been made


perfectly clear. It is over a five-year period. What we shall be doing in this price review I cannot anticipate now, but it will not necessarily be directly related to the changes in the unit of account, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Farr: Is there not now some danger of the whole common agricultural policy collapsing in ruins because it has become so complex? At an early date will my right hon. Friend press the Commissioner responsible to take a good look at the CAP to see how it can be modified and simplified?

Mr. Godber: My hon. Friend is right in saying that it is extremely complicated. I do not think that he is right in saying that it is likely to collapse. There is far too much at stake here for it to be allowed to collapse, in regard to the economy of nine countries. I should have thought that that was the main factor on both sides of the House.
The Commissioner is well aware of the complicated nature of these arrangements. I am hoping that he will be coming to London in the near future, when we shall be having discussions with him about ways in which they can, in the long run, he simplified.

Mr. Jay: As the Minister has just said that the Government are engaged in raising food prices here up to Common Market levels, why do other Ministers keep telling us that the level of food prices is outside the Government's control and nothing to do with the Common Market?

Mr. Godber: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that in all the discussions we have had, in the House and elsewhere, about the accession, it was always made clear that we should raise our prices to Community levels. His Government estimated what that increase would be in their White Paper, and we took over that objective. We have given forecasts which have accorded somewhat similarly to the position of the previous Government. There is no change whatever in relation to that. But what I and my colleagues tell him is that so far rises in prices in this country have certainly not been occasioned by the Community.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: In view of the surpluses, now becoming very considerable, of butter and other commodities in the Common Market, will my right hon. Friend resist any proposals which may be put for increasing agricultural prices in Europe in the review. Furthermore, will he consider the arrangements by which Britain can buy some of these surpluses rather than allowing the price of butter to rise by £200 a ton in July?

Mr. Godber: The problem of surpluses has been a recurring one in the Community since its formation. At present butter is in surplus again, although it was not a year ago. These will obviously be matters of importance, concerning myself and my colleagues, in Brussels when we discuss them. It is certainly not my desire to see Community prices levels rise in this way. I hope we shall find a satisfactory solution, but I cannot anticipate the outcome of these discussions.

Mr. Strang: When will the Minister and his Common Market counterparts face up to the fact that the vast array of complicated border taxes and compensatory payments has long since made a nonsense of the idea that we can have a European agricultural policy based on common market prices? As it is the British people, above all, who suffer from this policy, will he take the lead in calling for it to be scrapped and will he tell the Commission to concentrate on something useful, such as regional policy?

Mr. Godber: The simple answer is that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman at all. The Community arrangements for a CAP make an effective contribution towards European unity. It is not so much the common agricultural policy but the complications about the relative currency values that have made problems so difficult over recent years. These are the facts. This is what has complicated the issue. I hope and believe that we shall be able to get these matters sorted out in a satisfactory way. But at present, although these are complicated, they are fair as between one country and another.

Mr. Marten: On the topic of rises in the cost of food, will my right hon. Friend confirm that we are now phasing out subsidies on sugar—a commodity which has been subsidised for some time without rationing? Will he inform the TUC


how stupid that body is in recommending to the Prime Minister that food should be subsidised because, under the Common Market régime we are not allowed to go in for subsidies?

Mr. Godber: On the question of sugar—and I made this point last month—the relatively small consumer subsidy is being phased out. So far as the TUC is concerned, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is quite competent to deal with these matters.

Mr. Buchan: Is not the whole common agricultural policy in a state of shambles? If we are to understand the Minister's statement, does it not mean that there has been not so much a devaluation as a devaluation on top of a devaluation? Secondly, we are told that there is to be no delay in terms of a review of British agricultural policy but only that there will be a postponement until the middle of March. Thirdly, the subsidy on beef will continue, although the Minister does not know how it is to be done, though that question must be decided in advance of the review. This is the present situation in which British agriculture finds itself.
Is it not disgraceful that our policy has been postponed while the mess is sorted out in Brussels? Will the Minister put the British policy to the Commission for ratification before he announces it to us, or will the Commission cancel it and will he then make an announcement to the House? In the meantime, what does he intend to do

about prices? Does he not appreciate that a 3½ per cent. increase since the freeze constitutes not a freeze or a thaw but a torrent of price increases? The Minister should act now.

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman, in an effort to try to score party points, completely misunderstands the situation. It is not the CAP which is in difficulty. It is the effect of the currency problems which arise from wholly different sources. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in talking about delay in the farm price review, because we are not delaying it. The middle of March is the normal timing, and that is when it will come out. He is confusing our price review with the Community pricing arrangements. It is the Community pricing arrangements which are being delayed by a month. This will not affect us in any way. If he feels that things are in a shambles, he has only to look at the affairs of his own party.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House has before it two important motions for debate.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 9TH MARCH

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Patrick Cormack.
Sir Bernard Braine.
Mr. James Lamond.

LABOUR-ONLY SUB-CONTRACTING BILL

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit labour-only sub-contracting (self-employment) in the building and construction industry.
This is the system otherwise known as lump labour which I wish to see prohibited in the construction industry.
The Bill will not eliminate the specialist sub-contractor from the industry, who has always had an honourable place in that industry, but it will attempt to eliminate those who work in gangs and who receive lump payment for their work. There has been a definite increase in this type of labour during the last 10 years. In fact, it has been steadily increasing since 1948.
The use of lump labour has been particularly prevalent in the South of England, but we now find it spreading throughout the entire country. It used to be thought that once there was a relatively high level of unemployment in the construction industry this type of labour would disappear. This has not proved to be the case. Despite high unemployment, and in many respects because of it, this practice has increased.
Under the lump system workmen receive very high wages indeed, but the important thing the House must understand is that this money is earned at the expense of the safety conditions on building and construction sites. It means virtually ignoring welfare and health arrangements. It also means that families who have suffered because a husband or son has been killed or injured on a construction site have afterwards discovered that under the lump system they receive no compensation.
Another great fault in the system is the failure to pay a worker's national insurance contribution, and under this system there has been widespread tax evasion. The system also leads to bad workmanship, a shoddy product and at times when mixed gangs work on a site there has been violence between lump and non-lump workers. It is a very bad and pernicious system.
Most employers put their hands on their hearts and say, "We do not agree with the lump system, and do not operate it." Therefore, it is very strange that the system is growing increasingly and that more and more workers are going on to the lump system. This can happen only if the main contractor allows it to happen.
This subject has been pursued in the House over many years. In 1970 the Labour Government introduced the Construction Industry Contracts Bill which, had Labour not been defeated in the General Election, would have become law. That Bill proposed to establish a register of employers with a levy on payments for construction work made to unregistered contractors. This was intended to offset the benefit they obtained by avoiding national insurance contributions, SET, training levy and all the rest. That legislation may well have eliminated labour-only sub-contracting. Personally, I felt that the provisions were slightly complicated, but had the Bill be enacted that would have been proved one way or another.
The Bill received qualified support from the then Conservative Opposition. Indeed, the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark), who is now a junior Minister, on 24th February 1970 introduced his own Bill entitled The Regulation of Self-Employment in the Construction Industry Bill. Although that Bill was never published, I understand that it was based on the recommendations of the Phelps-Brown Committee set up by the Labour Government in 1967. That committee examined the problem in depth.
Labour-only self-employment is a bad system, for the following reasons. First it undermines collective bargaining and properly negotiated rates of pay and conditions of employment in the industry. Secondly, it means that the safety, health and welfare regulations are ignored, and that applies particularly to safety. Everyone knows of the large number of people killed in the building industry. It has the highest toll of any industry other than coal mining and the numbers have increased as a result of the lump system.
Thirdly, it means that national insurance cards are not stamped and many workers draw unemployment benefits while they are doing a lump job. If they become unemployed they do not receive their benefits and redundancy payments


and employers of course do not pay overheads. These high incomes are gained at the expense of the consumer because of shoddy work resulting from lump labour.
It also means that the number of apprentices is declining in the industry and if this continues we shall find that within a few years there will be a crisis in the building and construction industries because there will be insufficient craftsmen.
I want to give examples of what is happening in our industry—I say "our" industry because I come from it. I know of good workmen and one in particular, an ex-foreman who has been out of work for a year in Liverpool because the only jobs he could have taken were labour-only self-employed ones. He refuses to do it as many other good craftsmen do, and these workers are being penalised as a result.
The Government recognised that something must be done because they endeavoured to deal with the tax evasion. They included provisions in the Finance Act 1971 to deal precisely with the problem. The tax losses to this country have been estimated at between £10 million and £300 million. I do not know what the figure is. All I know is that there has been a hell of a loss to the revenue as a result of tax evasion. But tax evasion has not been eliminated even by the Finance Act. It has not stopped the concept of labour-only sub-contractors to the industry, which has grown since the Act took effect. The situation in the construction industry was summed up by John Matthews in an article in the Sunday Times on 7th May 1972 when he said:
Behind the majestic façade of steel girders and slow moving cranes on building sites, behind the handsome profits of contractors with household names … there lies a jungle of industrial relations which has grown unchecked now for more than 20 years.
It goes on to say:
The lump operates on building sites where unions are weak and inevitably has become a major source of friction between workers, employers and the State.
Let me give an example of what Mr. Matthews means. A contractor, the GCT Construction Company Limited, a subsidiary of Northern Development Limited, is building about 1,000 houses adjoining my constituency. Most, if not all, the

labour on that site has been lump labour. There has been a great deal of conflict between the trade unions and the main contractors as a result.
The Liverpool Daily Post on 10th February said in a report that a court order had closed the site down. Why? Because the safety regulations had not been adhered to. A building inspector, Mr. Sydney Gower, is reported to have said that there were many hazards on the site including a risk of serious injury to anyone falling from scaffolding on to concrete floors, a serious risk that men were liable to be buried in excavations because the sides were not shored up, and a risk that a house might collapse because its foundations were not as deep as nearby excavations. That site was operated on the basis of labour-only sub-contracting. That is an example of what happens where the lump is in existence. My industry has always suffered from the casual nature of the work, the fact that workers constantly face unemployment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member but this is by convention a Ten-Minute Rule Bill and the hon. Member began at seven minutes to the hour.

Mr. Heffer: I am awfully sorry and I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I did not think that I had taken 10 minutes and I had assumed on the basis of the notes I had made that I would take just 10 minutes. I apologise and I conclude by saying that this is something the industry has tried to eliminate over the years by agreement between the employers and the trade unions. It has not been successful and up to now the legislation has not worked. Further legislation is now required. We have heard about the 353,000 tax exemption certificates which have been granted, and that means a wholesale increase in labour-only subcontracting.
I hope that the House will agree to let the Bill go through because we need a register which will eliminate this type of labour from the industry in the interests of the consumer, of the nation and, in particular, of those who work and operate in the industry.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Eric S. Heffer, Mr. John Silkin, Mr. T. W. Urwin, Mr. James A. Dunn, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. James Sillars, Mr. Albert Booth, Mr. James Hamilton, Mr. Stanley Orme, Mr. Raymond Fletcher, Mr. Neil Kinnock, Mr. Charles Loughlin.

LABOUR-ONLY SUB-CONTRACTING

Bill to prohibit labour-only sub-contracting (self-employment) in the building and construction industry presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 18th May and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES (DOCUMENTS)

Mr. English: On a point of order. I wonder whether you can assist the House, Mr. Speaker. Now that we are a subordinate part of a federal institution, can you help us by saying who should inform the House of changes in the law which are relevant to debates before us when those changes occur only on this day? The particular point I have in mind was relevant to the statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food today, and is relevant to the next debate.
I should like to know, for example, who is to bring before us the existence of a document which came through the door this morning. Although the contents of it were decided in private on 29th December and published theoretically on 13th February, it appeared in London only this morning. It is Commission Decision 73/10 which authorises all member States to subsidise butter to the extent of 28p per pound per month to old-age pensioners, the unemployed and other persons receiving social security benefits.
Since this is highly relevant to prices and incomes and to the subject of subsidising old-age pensioners, I want to know who is to make a statement on behalf of the Government about when the proposal will be implemented.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has raised this as a matter of order. It seems to me to be a valid point for the debate. It is not a matter of order.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[9th ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

TELEVISION LICENCES (PENSIONERS)

4.10 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move
That this House considers that all retirement pensioners should be entitled as of right to free television licences.

Mr. Speaker: I should like to inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
while recognising the importance of television to elderly people, reaffirms the policy pursued by successive Governments of increasing benefits in cash rather than in kind; and welcomes the substantial increases for retirement pensioners that have been made since the General Election and the decision to implement an annual review of pensions.

Mr. Silkin: There is, I am aware, a strong case for abolishing the licence fee altogether, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) may touch on this later in the debate should he catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, but I propose to deal with the immediate problem of the retirement pensioner. I know that successive Governments over the past 10 years have spent a great deal of time considering the matter, and sucessive Governments have rejected it, but I make no apology for raising it again.
The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications said as recently as 29th November 1972:
I cannot speak about what has happened in the last 10 years in this connection. I have been in my present position only since April this year and I am bringing a fresh mind to inquire into the problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November 1972; Vol. 847, c. 400.]
I have been in my present position only since December, so that, if anything, my mind is even fresher than the Minister's. What troubles me about the Minister is that, while his mind may be fresh,


his objections are more than a little stale. He says that free television licences would create anomalies. But almost in the same breath he tells us that
Local authorities already have the power to assist elderly people with … the cost of television.
In other words, either he has no objections to anomalies in principle, or else an anomaly ceases to be an anomaly if it is done by a local authority.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Or by this place.

Mr. Silkin: Or by this place.
Then the right hon. Gentleman moves from anomalies to cost. What worries him, it seems, is not so much the cost of the concession, which, after all, is likely to be less than one-fifth the total licence fees, so much as the means of meeting the cost. He sees only one alternative. He says gloomily:
Any concession would lead either to a cut in the BBC's services or higher licence fees all round."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January 1973; Vol. 849 c. 386.]
Apparently this fresh mind of his is limited just to considering that stark alternative, and that alone. It never occurs to him that there may be other possibilities. Perhaps I may help him——

Mr. William Baxter (West Stirling-shire): Notwithstanding the freshness or otherwise of the minds of the Government or of the Opposition Front Bench, I think the House is entitled to know why, when the Labour Party had five years of power, they did not introduce this concession. As a member of the Labour Party for probably more years than most hon. Members—for 40-odd years—I have a right to ask whether or not we are scraping the bottom of the barrel of old-age pensioner sympathy in introducing a motion such as this when we had the opportunity to rectify it when we were in power.
I should like to know whether my right hon. Friend will tell me, as a member of the party, why we did not put some such measure into operation and why this hypocrisy is now being brought before us. The House deserves an answer to that question. The old-age pensioners should not be the plaything of political parties in this House.

Mr. Silkin: In what was, I think, a very brief intervention, and a helpful one, my hon. Friend asked why it was not done by successive Governments. It is a very fair point; I concede it straight away. Why was it not done? I hope in a moment or two to say why, whatever the situation was five or 10 years ago. The House can be reassured that I will deal with it. I hope in a few minutes' time to show why it has become more immediate and more imperative that something should be done now.
If I may say so to my hon. Friend, if he had listened to my speech before making his intervention he might have come to the conclusion that whoever is to blame for wrongs in the past—and I attach no blame at the moment to the Government; I had not even really started my speech—surely the duty of this House of Commons is to nut a wrong right. Even if it is put right five years later, it is still better to put it right now than never to put it right at all.
I was suggesting to the Minister of Post and Telecommunications that he was being a little pessimistic when he saw only two possibilities of dealing with the cause of the problem. There is a variety of choices open to him. I wonder whether I may suggest one out of the dozen or so which I think are available to him. The House will recall that in the Budget Statement last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer abolished as from 6th April 1973 the investment surcharge on unearned income. Even if the Chancellor were unwilling to reverse this unsolicited gift of £300 million, I cannot believe that the surtax payers whom he proposes to benefit would be reluctant to make a contribution out of their bonus to help retirement pensioners.
What would it come to? The total cost is £25 million or so. So it works out at 8½p in the pound for each of them. Why does not the Chancellor ask them? He may be surprised at the answer. I think, incidentally, that he would get a more sensible and more understanding reply than that given by the Minister on 29th November 1972. He said at the time:
I am sure that if any old-age pensioner … were asked if he was in favour of having something for nothing, the answer would be


'Yes'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November 1972; Vol. 846, c. 400.]
Some of us would take the view that a tiny concession like this one is a mere token return on a lifetime's service to the community.
All these objections are trivial, whether they concern anomalies, whether they concern the means of paying for this concession, whether they are an argument such as my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) has advanced, about who was to blame and who was not to blame——

Mr. Robert Cooke: Is the lifetime's service to be rewarded by a black and white licence or a licence for colour television?

Mr. Silkin: A colour television licence presupposes a colour television set. I do not know how many retirement pensioners in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have colour television sets. There are not so many in mine.

Mr. Cooke: Would it apply to all licences?

Mr. David Waddington: Answer the question.

Mr. Silkin: Of course it would be all. I am merely saying that it would be quite immaterial. Surely the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) has sufficient intelligence to grasp that small point.
The heart of the Government's case is embodied in the proposed amendment, namely, that the Government continue to reaffirm what they call
the policy … of increasing benefits in cash rather than in kind …".
Certainly if the pension were to be raised to such a level that it took into account all the additional expenses of life, apart altogether from those of mere subsistence, the argument for a separate licence concession would not be so strong. I fully accept that. But the pension does not cover all these expenses. It does not even approach doing so.
When Lloyd George created the retirement pension in 1908, the pension was 5s., and the average wage was 25s. Thus, the pension represented one-fifth of the average wage. Today, the pension is

£6·75, and the average wage is £35·82, which means that the retirement pension is now less than one-fifth of the average wage. There has been a depreciation in the last 65 years in relation to average earnings. I readily concede that the average wage today buys somewhat more than the average wage did in 1908, but nevertheless, the pensioner today has one fact of life above all others in common with the pensioner of 1908 and all succeeding years: in all working families food is the major item in the budget, but for the pensioner it occupies, as it always has done, a dominant position. If anything, things are worse today in this respect than they have ever been.
Our social security arrangements for the elderly are now in a state of crisis. Even if the price of food were to rise only gradually, pensioners would still form a deprived section of the community. In the last two and a half years, we have seen a rise in food prices which dwarfs even the previous Tory price rise of 1954 which had held the record up to then. There has been a 25 per cent. rise in the price of food.
Is it not a basic truth that the retirement pension is limited purely to subsistence rates? Throughout the history of the pension, the cost of living has been rising, each rise being followed at intervals—it has never been anticipated—by a cash increase in the retirement pension. The pension never catches up, as the comparative figures in 1908 show. The pension never gives the opportunity for a full life to pensioners. It aids existence, certainly, but it does not support living.
In order merely to exist, 2 million out of 7 million retirement pensioners are dependent on means-tested supplementary benefit. In addition, one-half of elderly widows and nearly 1 million spinsters live alone, together forming the most deprived section of the pensioner community. Of those who do not receive supplementary benefit, there are 3 million pensioners of both sexes living precariously, just £1 or £1.50 above the level.
The Government admendment rejects the concession. Cash, not kind, is what it purports to advocate. If the Secretary of State were talking of a real sufficiency of cash, I should support him. But he


is not. He is juggling with words. He knows as well as I do that if his Social Security Bill becomes law, 2 million or 3 million people will still be dependent on means-tested benefit for two generations to come.
In one respect, the motion and the amendment are in agreement. The amendment starts, at least, by recognising the importance of television for elderly people. It could hardly do otherwise. The latest figures show that on any day 78·4 per cent. of the population view some television. Ten years ago, when this argument first started, the figures were 10 per cent. lower, and at that time it may well have appeared that television was a luxury. It is not so today, and not so especially for the elderly. It has assumed an importance in their lives which we all have to take into account.
Saint-Beuve, the French critic, once said that, despite the drawbacks of old age, it was still the only way of living for a long time. There are many drawbacks to old age today, and it is up to all of us, on whichever side of the House we sit, to ensure that the avoidable drawbacks are eliminated. Despite the growth of medical care and research, we cannot altogether eliminate the physical handicaps of old age, but there are other handicaps about which we can easily do more. Of these the greatest is the loneliness which comes from being out of touch with the community. Television is the town crier of the twentieth century, bringing people together and keeping them, above all, in touch. To the elderly person it is a lifeline to the modern world, a means of keeping abreast of the many baffling and fast moving changes which are so typical of life today. Yet for so many that lifeline is missing.
It is not that there is a lack of good will in the community as a whole. On the contrary; there is a universal desire to help. Some months ago, before I was given my present responsibility, I received a letter from a schoolmaster in Bolton, the first paragraph of which read:
I was interested to hear that you are promoting a campaign to provide free television licences for old-age pensioners. It may interest you to know that at my school we repair and rejuvenate televisions to give away to the elderly and disabled. However because of the high cost of the licence, many pensioners are unable to accept a set. It is a pity that we can find volunteers to help our work, only to

be left with some televisions which Bolton social services department is unable to distribute.
I imagine that that state of affairs could be found throughout the country.
Does the Secretary of State deny, in the light of that letter, that retirement pensioners are being penalised? Here is an example of a community effort which all of us must applaud—a school with a social purpose, young people being encouraged, and willingly undertaking, to do work on behalf of the elderly. Such a project can be of benefit to young and old together, yet it is defeated by the simple inability of so many elderly people to pay for a licence.
That is the background of the matter which we are debating, not the smug and specious make-believe world of the amendment but the stark reality of life as it exists for so many millions of our fellow countrymen.
When we ask for this small concession we are trying to turn the key to a fuller life. The test of civilisation is how communities treat minorities within their ranks. Whether they be minorities of race, colour, creed, religion or, as in this case, age makes no difference. Compassion, like patriotism, is not enough. There must be imagination as well. Let us forget the precedents of the past, if there be any, and make our own precedent: a fuller and a better life for the elderly in the community. In that spirit, I ask the House to support the motion.

4.27 p.m.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Sir John Eden): I beg to move to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
while recognising the importance of television to elderly people, reaffirms the policy pursued by successive Governments of increasing benefits in cash rather than in kind; and welcomes the substantial increases for retirement pensioners that have been made since the General Election and the decision to implement an annual review of pensions.
I am glad that the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) drew attention to the degree of understanding on both sides of the House about the importance of television for elderly people. For many, as he said, it is the sole or principal source of entertainment, and for those who are confined to their homes or for reasons of infirmity are


largely immobile it is their main means of contact with the world about them.
Television is not the only matter of special significance for the retired, and there are some who might not place it at the head of their list of priorities. Food, warmth, clothing, contact with other people through the telephone or some other link—all these, too, may be of special significance for elderly people. Clearly, the precise need varies from one individual to another, and it is primarily for this reason that our social security system has been built up to provide both adequate resources in cash and flexibility in their disposition.
The present demand for free television licences for all or for certain categories of retirement pensioners stems not so much from any widely held view that this should have priority over other claims on available resources. It arises directly from the existence of a special arrangement whereby residents in certain homes get their licences at reduced rates, while others have to pay the full amount. There is no doubting the bitterness which has been caused by the present arrangements, and for this reason I have been reviewing the whole position. The special 5p licence now available to about 170,000 people resident in certain old people's homes has undoubtedly given rise to many anomalies.

Mr. John Silkin: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that the argument antedates the 5p licence by many years? My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) has made a helpful reference to this.

Sir J. Eden: Certainly. I was not talking about the generality of the argument. I was talking about the present campaign, to use the right hon. Gentleman's own words, for a free television licence, a campign which the substantial correspondence and representations to me leave me in no doubt owes its origin primarily to the existence of the special 5p licence. When that licence was introduced by the Labour Government in 1968 it was not intended to be a welfare concession. Ironically, its primary purpose was to put right previous anomalies which had come about in the licensing requirements of those homes.
Therefore, at the outset of my review I recognised how important it was, when considering any possible changes, to ensure that in trying to get rid of one set of anomalies I did not create others elsewhere. If it were to be merely a case of transferring the bitterness felt from one sector to another, it would be better by far to leave things as they are. That, as things have turned out, is the conclusion of my review.
The first thing I did was to see whether the problem could be wholly or partly solved by extending for the purposes of the special licence the definition of old people's homes. I considered, for example, whether it would be a good idea to extend the scope of the special licence to cover any housing provided specially for old people regardless of whether there was any community facility. But it would have been impossible then to defend the distinction between that kind of housing and other houses whose occupants happened to be retired people.
Another idea was to exempt all homes where there were regular visits from a warden or a similar service, but that would not help those not in receipt of such services, who may be less well able to pay for their television licences than those who get it. Extending the definition of a qualifying home would only give rise to further anomalies and more bitterness. Then I considered various ways of extending the categories of people benefiting. None of these has offered a satisfactory way out.
There were various possibilities. The first was that all retired people over 70, for example, should benefit. That would cost about £20 million a year. That is a refinement of the idea of free licences for all pensioners. Not all the over-70s are worse off than many people who would not benefit, particularly many slightly younger retired people.
Another suggestion, which has appealed to many people, is that all pensioners receiving supplementary benefits should be allowed reduced licence fees. That would cost about £8 million a year. The concession would do nothing for the poorest of all, those who cannot afford television. Some pensioners receiving supplementary benefit would, because of the concession, be


slightly better off than some others who just failed to qualify for supplementary benefits.
Then there was the proposal that all pensioners living on their own should be given a free licence. That is along the lines of the amendment in the name of a number of my hon. Friends. It would cost about £7 million a year for homes containing only one pensioner and about another £5 million a year for homes containing two pensioners. Again, those without television would not benefit, and not all who benefited would be in need. It would be particularly unfair to exclude some households with non-pensioners living in them, such as a widow with a disabled daughter living with her.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: How does my right hon. Friend reconcile what he has just said about the cost of the concession for which I have asked with the figures given by his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway), on 30th June 1971, when he said that the cost of half-rate licences to all old-age pensioners would be £12½ million?

Sir J. Eden: The cost of allowing all old-age pensioners to pay a half-rate licence fee of £3·50 would be about £12 million-£13 million. The figure that my hon. Friend asked me to reconcile with the figure she quoted was the cost of giving a free licence to all pensioners living on their own or in two-pensioner families. That is considerably less than the cost of giving a free licence to all pensioners, irrespective of where they live. The point may become clearer when I come later to the question of the cost of giving it to all pensioners.
Again, in the case about which I have been speaking, those without television would not benefit. One other aspect that I found difficult to accept was that it would involve considerable checking on the validity of claims. Without that checking it would be difficult to confine the concession to pensioners and genuine dependants.
Even the extreme solution of abolishing the concession altogether would have given rise to further bitterness and a sense of unfairness. I found that whichever way we turned we were forced back to what has always been the basis of our social security system, that the proper way to

provide for the needs of retired people is through benefits in cash, not kind.
That was the view of the Opposition when they had responsibility for these matters. As the right hon. Gentleman fairly said, the question pre-dates the introduction of the special 5p licence. The matter was well summed up, amongst a number of other comments, by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who said as far back as 19th February 1965:
I am sure that it is by far the best policy, on the whole, to provide old people with adequate money resources and to allow them to take their place in the community and choose the disposition of their resources like other people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February 1965; Vol. 706, c. 1594.]
That view of the Government in those days was supported on many separate occasions by the right hon. Members for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Edward Short) and Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) when they held the office of Postmaster-General. Each in turn was confronted with the same problem as that with which I have been trying to grapple. They came to the same conclusion after their own studies and review that the best way to deal with the needs of the generality of retirement pensioners was through the social security system, with payments in cash.

Mr. Peter Rost: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that is is a basic Conservative philosophy that help should be given to those most in need rather than on a flat-rate basis, and that the proposal of hon. Members on this side that television licences should be given to those on social security supplementary benefits and those living alone, who are most in need, is worth considering?

Sir J. Eden: I have tried to say that in approaching possible solutions to the problem along those lines I had no alternative but to conclude that any possible course of action would exclude many people whose needs were greater than those who would be helped by it.

Mr. Skinner: The Minister has now established that it is primarily a matter of money. As people in the surtax bracket will be endowed with another £300 million on 1st April, cannot the right hon. Gentleman have a word with


the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try to extract from that sum enough money to allow the pensioners to have free licences? The rest could go in the form of food subsidies if the right hon. Gentleman spoke to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The pensioners would then benefit twice over.

Sir J. Eden: That goes slightly wider than the terms of the motion.
I cannot accept the proposition that because television is important to all old people, and because some cannot afford to pay the licence fee, all old people should have a free television licence. To do that, as the Opposition now ask, would, as the right hon. Gentleman said, cost from £25 million to £30 million—it is not possible to be precise about these matters. That is about one-fifth of the BBC's revenue. It would mean putting about £2 on to the licence fee to be paid by everyone else to make up the loss of revenue to the BBC.
Some advocate an even more radical solution. Some recommend that there is a possible way out by changing altogether the sources of the BBC's revenue. A number of possibilities arise here, some of which I have studied. Another course is one evidently favoured by the hon. Members for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) and for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), which is to devise a system by which the BBC would be financed from general taxation.
That, too, was considered and rejected by the Labour Government, who announced their decision in the White Paper on Broadcasting of December 1966, paragraphs 8 and 9 of which read as follows:
8. The Government have completed their enquiry into the BBC's finances. Practically speaking, the only possible ways of providing finances for the BBC are: by direct Government subvention, by the sale of advertising time in the Corporation's services, or by the licence fee system.
9. A Government subvention would be liable to expose the Corporation to financial control of such detail as would prove incompatible with the BBC's independence. The money would, of course, have to be found from general taxation.
I have no doubt that if the hon. Member for Woolwich, East has the opportunity to catch the eye of the Chair he will develop the points of his amendment.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: May I just correct the Minister on this point? He spelt out the three alternatives which the Labour Government rejected. I would reject all three of them. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the amendment carefully, he will see that it is based on none of those three.

Sir J. Eden: I shall listen with great care to what the hon. Gentleman says.
Having said this, I am sure that the whole House will agree that a change of this kind is a proposition of very far-reaching significance. It would be quite wrong to slide it in as a sort of afterthought so as to escape from the anomalous situation created by the old persons' homes licence.
There are a number of ways in which retired people and others who have difficulty in finding the amount of the television licence fee can be helped. There is the savings card scheme which encourages the purchase of national savings stamps at 10p a time to go towards the cost of a licence. There are the discretionary powers available to local authorities in Section 45 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, which provides at local level, where it is much more effective, for the assessment of priorities in meeting individual requirements for help in kind.
Above all these, however, is the determination of this Government to ensure that all pensioners continue to enjoy a rising standard of living. Our record of care for the elderly is well known. Of course we would like to have done even more than we have already achieved. As we move to a system of annual reviews, all pensioners can have full confidence that their interests will be well served by this Government in the years to come.
Payments in cash are the right way to help, through the social security system, those who deservedly make a claim on our compassion. What is more, Labour Members well know that to be so. In the light of their own past statements, and in the light also of the inadequacy of their own actions when in office, the Opposition's motion is doubly unwarranted. Indeed, the whole exercise smacks of hypocrisy and opportunism, and I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Government amendment.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I wish to intervene briefly to reinforce the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Which one?"]—the senior right hon. Gentleman who opened the debate—and to say that I found the Minister's argument very depressing. I do not think that we should be saying that the Labour Party is hypocritical to raise this subject. Certainly, the Labour Party is not saying that the Tories have dragged their feet. Can we not discuss the matter on its merits?
It is fortunate for the Government that the amendment in the names of some of the Minister's hon. Friends was not called because, if it had been selected, it would probably have been carried tonight.
I cannot accept the argument that because some people who can afford the licence fee would benefit if the concession were granted across the board, therefore this concession should not be granted to all pensioners. On that basis we would not have old-age pensions.
It is also strange to claim that it is all right to have a concessionary 5p licence fee for an old people's home when probably old people's homes are financed by local authorities, anyway, but that it is totally different when someone is living entirely on his own and when he can much less afford to pay the licence fee than can those who are living in an old people's home.
I declare that I have in two different contexts what might be called an interest. First, I am chairman of a charity called the National Benevolent Fund for the Aged in which my fellow trustees include the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill). One of the two activities of this charity is to install television sets in the homes of old people. We do that on the advice of the social workers in the borough in question. I had the very great privilege last week of seeing the 250th set installed. I shall say a few words about that, about the way in which this is of immense importance to old people, and where I think that the Government could help. I shall also mention where I think the Government could find the finance for the concessions which are being sought.
Secondly, I am associated in the West Country with a relay service which operates radio and television, and therefore I suppose it could be said that, remotely, I have a financial interest in the subject under debate.

Mr. Skinner: Another one?

Mr. Thorpe: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is so delighted to hear that he and I are not exactly on the breadline. Before he leaps to his feet I advise him to read the article in the New Statesman tomorrow.

Mr. Skinner: I do not believe that rubbish.

Mr. Thorpe: Turning to serious matters, I have always taken the view that one should set one's face against concessions to old-age pensioners, because I believe that the more concessions there are, the stronger the excuse for any Government to give a pension which is not adequate to meet the real requirements.
However, I believe that we are moving into a situation in which pensions are never likely to catch up with inflationary tendencies unless and until they are tied to the cost of living so that they are automatically increased if the cost of living rises. We are a long way from that yet. It happens in some countries, and I think particularly of Government servants in France whose pensions are directly linked to the cost of living.
Although it is true that we have an annual review of pensions—a definite improvement which I welcome—the mere fact that 2 million out of 7 million pensioners receive regular social security benefit indicates that the hopes of those who were involved in phase 2 of our welfare state—I think particularly of the days of the late Lord Beveridge, who believed that supplementary benefits should be a very rare exception and not the rule—have not been realised. Today, for a large number of pensioners it is the rule.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): The right hon. Gentleman speaks with some authority, but I must ask him to accept a correction of one thing he has said. The annual upratings, and all previous up-ratings under both Governments, at least keep pace with the cost of living. It is


unfortunate that we have not been able to do more, but we do keep up with the cost of living. I am not asking for more than that as a concession from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Thorpe: Of course I concede that when the annual review takes place and when the pension is increased, if that be the case, it is probably true that at that moment it has sought to catch up with the cost of living. But I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that the rate of inflation is such that the increase then made is very soon overtaken by inflation, and not until another 12 months have elapsed does a further review take place. On that, I do not think that we differ in terms, and I naturally accept what the Secretary of State said.
There is a case now for making an exception to a rule which I have always firmly held—no concessions but an adequate pension—because of the inflationary factor to which I have referred.
A television set costs our charity roughly £25 a year for installation, maintenance, rental and general overheads. The circumstances in which the charity with which I am connected seeks people in whose homes it may install a television set are, first, that they live alone, because there is by definition a greater element of loneliness; secondly, that they are people who by no stretch of imagination can afford to rent, let alone buy a television set; thirdly, that they are people who will probably have neighbours whom they will invite in to share the television set when it has been installed.
That is an interesting element. Our experience is that an old person who for the first time gets a television set will often invite the neighbours in to share it. In that way they begin to build up the companionship which they lacked before. I assure the right hon. Gentleman—I do not know whether he wants to be assured, perhaps he is concerned with finance and not with the merits of the argument—that a television set provides a totally new dimension to an old person. Not merely is it a window on the world, not merely does it give old people an interest in what was perhaps previously a drab existence, it also provides a degree of companionship that they never had

before. Therapeutically it is of immense importance and value.
I make a suggestion about how it is to be paid for. I am subject to correction, but I understand that the Government place 20,000 television advertisements each year with the IBA and the BBC. I am told that the health, safety and welfare advertisements are carried by IBA without charge, but that advertisements concerning family income supplement, recruitment to the Army and other subjects are paid for by the Government. I understand that the IBA is paid approximately £3½ million a year by the Government, whereas the BBC is paid nothing.
There is scope for examination of the idea that advertisements placed by the Government with the IBA and the BBC should be costed and paid for. This might well provide a source of income to the IBA and the BBC which would compensate them for a reduction, or preferably a total remission, of the licence fee that is paid by the pensioner.
At present the BBC is subsidising the Government because the Government get their advertisements free, and the IBA is partly subsidising the Government because many Government advertisements are carried free. Here is a way in which the Government could pump money into the two corporations and thereby release money which need not have to be found out of central Exchequer funds. By paying the BBC the full cost of Government advertisements we should go a long way to making up the deficit.
This is a very rich country. We have an enormous Budget——

Sir K. Joseph: indicated dissent.

Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but of course we are a rich country. The average GNP in this country is very high compared with that of many other countries. If this were something that the country wanted to do, we could more than afford to do it out of Government resources, and we could do it tomorrow, as the Secretary of State knows very well. When we think what we are spending on other causes which should not be so high on our list of priorities, the cost here would be roughly double the cost of the research that has been carried out on the lavatories in Concorde.
The Government's compassion is not in doubt, and their sense of the importance of this is not in doubt, but I believe that the Treasury has twisted their arm a little too strongly. The Government must have courage to stand up to the Treasury Ministers. If they do, I suspect that they will have the backing of the majority of this House behind them.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Michael Noble: I shall not keep the House for more than my customary five or six minutes in making a few comments relevant to the debate.
I oppose the motion for several reasons, and I agree to a considerable degree with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). That is not difficult, because in this area we can all agree with a considerable part of the argument.
The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) was asked, rather unkindly, by his hon. Friend why he had chosen this moment for the debate. Having been in the Government and in the "Shadow Cabinet", I know only too well that impending by-elections concentrate the Opposition's mind on suitable Supply Days for popular themes. This I understand, and I do not expect any political party to ignore what is perfectly good honest politics.
I object to the motion partly on the same grounds as those advocated by the right hon. Member for Devon, North. I am totally against the principle of concessions to old-age pensioners. I am sure he will agree that once one starts on television there will be the telephone and tobacco—we have been through a number of them. Only this week two of my constituents have written to me saying how difficult it is for them to get help with their telephones. But once one starts on this track it is only too easy for politicians, on whichever side of the House they sit, to go gently down the slope.
What makes me much more inclined to vote against the motion is the simple question of priorities. We are all to some extent affected by what we see and hear every day. In my constituency the vast majority of people get no radio, a few get BBC1 and a handful get BBC2. Yet

this House has voted for extra channels and new types of radio all of which have taken vast sums of money to produce, while in a large part of the west coast of Scotland and the north of England there are many thousands of people who have no television, whether they are young people who want to listen to educational programmes, whether they are old people, or whether they are people living alone—whatever their conditions may be.
If the Government feel at any particular moment that they have £10 million or £15 million extra to spend on doing good in the country as a whole, those people who have nothing should have a higher priority than the broad generality, as the right hon. Gentleman would call them, of the old-age pensioners all over the country. He shakes his head, but if he had as many old-age pensioners as I have in my constituency, many of whom cannot even get a radio, I think he would agree with me that to give extra television to a whole range of people rather than to those who, as in my constituency, have none would not be fair.
So I think this is a genuine argument, and it is one on which the BBC should have spent more time and more thought and more money over recent years.
There are a great many people who want to speak in this debate and, no doubt, there will be various points of view, but it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin), who opened the debate, who said that the Government should be judged by the way they treat minorities. In a great part of Scotland and some part of England the minorities are people who have at the moment totally inadequate television or radio facilities.
My right hon. Friend said, and was echoed in an intervention by another of my right hon. Friends, that we would have liked to have done more in the way of improving living standards. I merely at this particular moment would say to very many people in the country that whether or not we are able to do more for our old-age pensioners depends on the attitude which they take in many of these industrial disputes.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) made a very


powerful speech in favour of more consideration for the old folk of this country, and I follow him in a great deal of what he said, but I find myself unable to support the Motion as proposed from this side of the House unless I have certain assurances from the official spokesmen. In the first place, I am opposed to payments in kind and subsidies in kind to particular groups within the community. In the second place, I am in favour of reform of the television licence system, and any such concession as we are considering this afternoon could put off a long needed reform. The concession of 5p to which the Minister has referred is an example of just that. It adds to the complication of the problem when concessions are brought in.
If concessions in this area are allowed they could well be allowed in many others. They could be allowed on tobacco duties, on beer prices, on telephone installation or rental charges. This aspect of the matter is particularly relevant to what my right hon. Friend said about the need for old folk to be in communication with the rest of the community. If he were proposing a concession on telephone installation charges he would have a very powerful argument. I would oppose it, but it would certainly be stronger, in my view, than that for the concession argued for today.
We could argue for concessions in clothing prices and—particularly today—on food prices, which are going up all the time, and old-age pensioners are in a worse position than almost any other section of the community in trying to afford those prices. We could ask for concessions in electricity and gas charges and on coal prices. There is no end to the list of cases which could be argued in favour of special concessions to be made for the old folk.
If any of these concessions are given someone has to pay for them, either the general taxpayer or the consumer. They are not provided out of the air. Therefore, these concessions become a form of hidden taxation on the rest of the community, and I am against hidden taxation. I think everyone should know exactly what taxation is being raised and what his contribution is to it.
Furthermore, if these concessions are made they are open to objection on four main grounds. Firstly, they can be abused. I think the Minister has this in mind. It could be difficult to identify whether an old-age pensioner is actually living in his or her own home. When I was a Minister examining this problem we were conscious of the possibility that many households would be able to produce old-age pensioners as being in sole occupation of houses and get the concession when, in fact, the pensioners had families residing there with them. Are we to have an army of inspectors to check this? We are entering very dangerous ground if we do that.
Secondly, such concessions lead to administrative costs and a certain amount of bureaucracy.
Thirdly, if the concession is allowed to old-age pensioners, why should it not be allowed to other deserving groups—to the disabled, the unemployed, the widows? All these groups deserve our consideration, and some of them are worse off than the old folk.
The fourth and main objection—and it applies to all minority groups—is that it treats a minority as second-class citizens. I am opposed to that.
Minority groups, whether of old-age pensioners or of the disabled or of any others, deserve to have payment in cash of a sufficient value so that they can pay their way and carry their heads high in the community. I remember the position when the old-age pensioners were allowed a concession on tobacco. It really degraded them. Moreover, many of them who did not themselves smoke sold off the concession on the side illegally. It was degrading for them as well as for the society which made them the concession.

Mr. Rost: Would the hon. Gentleman concede that at the moment there is an anomaly whereby some pensioners are getting the television licence at 5p and that many of them are less in need than others who are not getting that?

Mr. Stonehouse: I would agree, but if there is an anomaly we do not cure the anomaly by introducing another one, and I have a proposal which, I hope, will deal with that anomaly.
Rather than grant this concession I would favour a proper cash allowance for the old folk. Their pensions in this country are far too low; when compared for instance, with those paid in Germany, they are abysmally low. I would favour an increase of £2 a week or £100 a year, which are sums which our society can afford, and I am glad to see the Secretary of State agreeing with me on that.

Sir K. Joseph: In principle.

Mr. Stonehouse: Furthermore, there is an urgent need to consider reform of the whole way we collect the fee. It has been suggested in some quarters that the licence fee should be abolished; in other words, that it should be paid for by the general taxpayer. The BBC's objections to that are valid. It would mean that the BBC would be the creature directly of the State rather than indirectly as is the case today. I favour the BBC continuing to have its independent source of income.
A proposal which merits consideration is that collection of the licence fee should be on the rateable value of a house. It merits consideration. After all, when television was first introduced there was only a tiny minority of houses which had it. Today 95 per cent. of households have TV. It would be easy to have a flat-rate fee, not a differential between colour and black and white, which is also an anomaly, because it costs the BBC just as much to put out the service. When almost every household in the country, apart from those in remoter parts of Scotland, has a TV set, it would be administratively easy and much less expensive if it were assumed that every house had a TV set, that the licence fee automatically formed part of the rateable assessment, was collected by the rating authorities on the rates, and passed directly to the BBC. If a householder does not have a TV set he can arrange for that part of his assessment to be deleted.
This would be administratively easy and less expensive than the present arrangement. It would take away from the Post Office the job, which I know it does not like, of trying to collect this money from a reluctant public and becoming a Big Brother with its detector vans, which are an unsavoury aspect of the way that the television service is paid for.
I hope that the official Opposition spokesman in replying to the debate will give an assurance that it is not our policy to have concessions as a matter of principle, that we shall not have a proliferation of concessions being proposed, and that this particular proposal is only a short-term stopgap until something adequate can be done to increase the cash benefit to the old folk of this land.

5.12 p.m.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: The right hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) made a thoroughly realistic and constructive speech. It would be almost impossible, after making such a speech, for him to go into the Lobby with the Opposition.
I have always been against help in kind for retired people on principle. I criticised the tobacco concession, which I thought was unfair and illogical, and I was extremely pleased when it was abolished. I believe that it is patronising for this House to suggest that we should spend retired people's money for them. I prefer to leave them to spend it in whatever way they think best.

Mr. John Farr: Will my hon. and gallant Friend give way?

Sir T. Beamish: No. Forgive me. I have promised to be brief.
There is no real need for free television licences for retired people. Need is a very important part of the test. Television is entertainment in the home, and cheap at the price. Many retired people can afford a television licence if they can afford a television set. Many would not have a television set in their homes for all the rice in China. They just do not want television. This applies to people in all age groups. I suggest that television cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as a necessity. It was a complete non sequitur on the part of the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) when he said that because local authorities have discretion to provide television licences free to certain categories, therefore everyone should have them. That does not follow at all.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Wednesbury that if something must be given in kind—as I have said, I am


not in favour of that—there is a far better case for a free telephone than for a free television licence.
In short, the idea that the moment a woman reaches the age of 60, which I regard as being middle-aged—I am 56—and the moment that a man reaches the age of 65, they should automatically, at the expense of the taxpayer, get a free television licence seems a thoroughly ridiculous proposition. I regard it as a complete waste of money—£25 million to £30 million—and a misuse and abuse of the taxpayers' resources.
Why retired people anyhow? How about the chronically sick and totally disabled? Nobody has mentioned them and they are not referred to in the amendment.

Mr. John Golding: Mr. John Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme) rose——

Sir T. Beamish: I will not give way. For once, I want to be brief and I am being constructive.
How about the chronically sick and totally disabled? They cannot go to the movies or to football or cricket matches. They cannot go riding or do gardening. They are stuck in their houses, possibly in one room, and often in bed. Surely there is greater need for the chronically sick and disabled than for people of 60 or 65 years of age to have free television licences. I think that many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with that proposition.
Lewes probably has a rather more than average number of retired people than many other places.

Dr. Tom Stuttaford: Rather richer, too.

Sir T. Beamish: Rather richer in some parts, but very poor indeed in others. I should like my hon. Friend to go to Newhaven, Peacehaven, Telscombe Cliffs and other such areas where in my constituency he will find many poor retired people living on fixed incomes. We should be careful how we generalise.
I keep in close and regular touch, as we all do, with retired people, through the National Federation of Old-Age Pensioners, the Lewes Old People's Welfare Committee and many such organisations.
Since the General Election I have had hundreds of letters from retired people, but only two asking for a free television licence. Therefore, there is no pressure for this concession.
I recognise that real poverty still exists. Some people are too proud to ask for supplementary pensions. It is sad that even now some people are unaware of their rights.
I recognise all this absolutely, but it does not alter my opinion that it is better to give help in cash rather than in kind. Both the major parties have made steady progress in tackling this problem. Looking back over 25 years, remarkable progress has been made.
The right hon. Member for Deptford was not correct in saying that the pension never catches up. He went back to 1908 to try to prove that. At the end of 13 years of "Tory misrule" the retirement pension was worth 50 per cent. more in purchasing power than at the beginning. Now we have the annual review for which old people have been begging for decades under successive Governments, but we have heard not a word of praise for the Government for that. Furthermore, we have given the biggest increases in our history to public service and armed forces pensioners. I am sure that we all warmly welcomed those increases.
I say nothing about the Socialist Government's record, because I do not want to be controversial. [Interruption.] Then I will be controversial. I am grateful to my hon. Friends for their encouragement.
I regard this proposal as at best misguided and at worst thoroughly unprincipled. The Labour Party took a firm stand when in power against giving benefits in kind. Now that it is in Opposition it has decided to reverse its attitude. However, two thoroughly honest interventions have been made by two Opposition Members flatly refusing to play party politics on this important question.
This is a proposal coming from a leaderless Opposition without a shred of policy to tackle one major problem facing Britain either at home or abroad. To hide this paucity of policy they have put up a smelly smokescreen of this kind which I regard as thoroughly sordid. It is an attempt to get votes on the cheap, and it will not work.
The intervention by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) during the speech by his right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford was extremely telling when he said that the Opposition were scraping the bottom of the barrel for old-age pensioners' sympathy. The hon. Gentleman then walked out of the Chamber in sheer disgust. He was quite right to do so.
Let us not only get our priorities right but keep them right. We do not help anyone or show true compassion by wearing our hearts on our sleeves. We must beware of thinking of people in terms of categories instead of as individuals, especially in this computerised age. Above all, let us do nothing that deprives retired people of the independence, the dignity and the choice—I particularly emphasise choice—which should be theirs by right regardless of their ages.
I am confident that the House will reject this rotten motion with the contempt that it deserves.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) certainly did not wear his heart on his sleeve. He concealed it a very long way from view. He is surely wrong when he says that there are not many old people who need free television licences. It is common ground between a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House that this is a serious problem and that many old people need help.
I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) spelled it out very well. As the debate has proceeded I also think that the method of helping these old people suggested by my right hon. Friend has been seen to have many very serious drawbacks and difficulties. I cannot think that anyone can avoid feeling that.
First, there is the major point that it singles out retirement pensioners only for help when other low income groups have needs often greater than many retirement pensioners. This is a very serious weakness.
Then we have not heard yet from my right hon. Friend from where the £25 million of which the retirement pensioners are to be relieved is to come, and I should

like some assurance about where it is being reimbursed from to the BBC. Are we recommending that the licence should go up by £2? I cannot believe that this is being put forward seriously by the Opposition Front Bench. Can it be that we are asking for a direct subsidy from the Government? There are objections to direct subsidies from the Government to the BBC, as several hon. Members have said. We must know what the proposal is for finding the £25 million of which the pensioners are to be relieved.
The debate so far has shown that we cannot solve this problem within the existing licensing system. I want to ask the House to look more widely at whether the system of licensing is the right one. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) said a categorical "No". I agree entirely with him, though I do not agree with the cure that he proposed. As the amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) makes clear, we regard the present licensing system as an inefficient and absurd anachronism.
In the old days when only a proportion of British people had sets it was necessary to devise a system by which those who had sets paid and those who did not have them did not pay. But today nearly 17 million households have licensed sets and another 750,000 have sets which are not licensed. Almost everyone has a set. Therefore, one of the two main justifications for the licensing system has disappeared and it is time that we adjusted our thinking to the new situation.
The second reason for the licensing system which is often put forward is that it defends the BBC's independence of the Government. This point was made by the Minister, and it has been referred to by a number of other hon. Members.
If we look at the facts we find that this is eyewash. The facts are, for example, that six times in the last 10 years the BBC has had to go to the Government to ask for an increase in the licence fee. That means that six times in 10 years the Governors and the Director General of the BBC have knelt in prayer and besought the Government to save the corporation from bankruptcy. This is not a state of independence of the Government.
The same problem would arise in the case of the scheme put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury, who said that we could arrange for it to be collected from the rates. However, each time the BBC needed more money from the rates it would have to go to the Government to get a rise in the amount precepted. It would be in the same position as now; namely, of abject dependence on the good will of the Government for an increase to keep it from bankruptcy. The old view that somehow the licence fees insulate the BBC from the Government is eyewash. It may have corresponded to reality in Reith's day, but it does not today.
Once again the BBC is getting out its prayer hassocks to kneel before the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking him to save it from bankruptcy. This is wholly undesirable. It is undesirable to have the BBC beholden to Ministers. It is also undesirable that the BBC should have to live from hand to mouth for its income, never knowing from one year to the next what the second year's income will be. This inhibits planning and increases the insecurity and dependence of the BBC. It also means that public service broadcasting is starved of money. Successive Governments have found that it is always extremely difficult and unpopular to raise the licence fee. For the health of public service broadcasting we must get rid of the licensing system.
The Minister asked how it was proposed to get the money, and said that the Labour Government turned down three alternative methods of getting the money. One of the methods which the Labour Government rightly turned down was what the Minister described as a direct subsidy from the Government to the BBC. I agree entirely. That is scarcely better than what we have now. In fact, it is much the same. Once again it would mean the BBC being beholden to Ministers.
A new system has to be based on two main principles. First, the BBC's income must be secured for a long period of years ahead. It must have at least five years' security of income which perhaps can be changed on a rolling basis. That in itself is a source of independence. If the BBC had this now it would not have to go cap in hand to the Government

approximately every two years. That in itself would be a source of independence and would enable the BBC to plan and conduct its affairs on a more business-like basis.
I come now to the second principle on which any new system must be based. I refer now not only to the BBC but to other forms of public service broadcasting which will develop in the years ahead I am thinking especially of local public service television——

Mr. John Mendelson: We are talking about pensioners.

Mr. Mayhew: I shall come back to the pensioners in a moment.
In putting forward this second principle, I am talking not only of the BBC but of other public service broadcasting such as local broadcasting or television which we are told will come. The second principle is that it should not be financed directly by the Government but by an intermediary organisation created for the purpose. At the moment much of our theatre, our opera and our music, thanks to the Arts Council, enjoys a degree of independence of the Government even though subsidised from public taxation. The BBC should have at least as much independence of the Government through a broadcasting finance council, even though that council would also be financed by public taxation. It would not be perfect. All that I say is that it would give the BBC a great deal more independence of the Government than the present system in which the corporation is obliged to go cap in hand to the Government every two years or so.
If we proceeded on that basis we should find a number of solutions to the problem that we are discussing. First, we should save £7½ million which is at present utterly wasted in the business of collecting licence fees. We should also eradicate the loss of £5 million in evasion which we suffer with the present licensing system. It would result in a tidying up and the saving of a great deal of public manpower and money. It would give the BBC a longer-term outlook and more independence, but, above all, it would get rid of a pernicious system of regressive taxation. The £7 licence is a completely regressive tax, hitting the pensioner and the millionaire exactly the same. It is a


poll tax. Not only is the pensioner hit by this but all other low income groups. Under the system of financing it through general taxation, all retirement pensioners and other low income groups would be either relieved or exempted from paying for the television services.
The television licence as it works now is a threat to the independence of the BBC; it is wasteful, inefficient and unjust, and it should be abolished.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I want to bring the debate back to the needs of the old-age pensioner in relation to a reduced television licence fee.
I was surprised that the Minister made no reference to a Committee stage in 1971 on a Bill that I had introduced to give old-age pensioners a licence at half price as of right. I shall be coming back in a moment to the amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and others have tabled, but first I should like to point out that I and a number of hon. Members on both sides—my Bill was an all-party Bill—are utterly convinced that there is a real need for some extra and especial comfort which only television can provide to old-age pensioners.
I was because of that fact that in 1971 I introduced my Ten-Minute Bill, which completed its Committee stage. All the evidence that I have had since then has led me to believe that my action then was absolutely right and that the need now is greater than ever.
We have heard little or no evidence today on how old-age pensioners are missing television because they cannot afford it. The Minister made one or two passing references. However, long before 1968, when the 5p licence came into effect, Tunstall's "Old and Alone" was published, in 1966. I wonder whether the Minister has read this survey of the old living alone in four centres—Oldham, Northampton, Harrow and South Norfolk.
In "Old and Alone" there are repeated examples, with which I will not weary the House—although I hope that my right hon. Friend will read the HANSARD of the Committee stage of my Bill on 30th June 1971, where he will find all the details—of elderly people who were interviewed who felt that having a TV was a window on life. The only reason

why they did not have a licence was that they could not afford it.
Since that debate, I have been able to obtain more up-to-date evidence. It is entirely impartial, coming as it does from the National Council of Citizens' Advice Bureaux. After the Committee stage debate on my Bill, it wrote to me last year to say that it had asked the different bureaux throughout the country to ascertain the need for television sets among the elderly. It said that in September 1971 47 bureaux had replied and all said that the need for television by elderly people living alone was paramount. The council added that it had had to advise some of the bureaux which had inquired how to help old people to get licences to use charitable bodies such as the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association and many others. Basically, however, the council, in its long letter, endorsed the real need of old people, especially pensioners, for a television set, which they could often ill afford because of the licence cost.
The Minister was right to dismiss the Opposition motion, because it calls for complete abolition of the licence fee. The statistics that we discussed in Committee on my Bill showed that to abolish the fee for all pensioners would mean a considerable sum and would not be practicable. But I am very distressed that the Minister did not at least mention that there are other alternatives. It is not good enough to say that something has been considered and the decision taken. There are other alternatives, such as issuing a half-price licence, which has many advantages, as I believe the Minister's predecessor recognised in that Committee. It would certainly mean losing half the revenue from the licences of those pensioners who already have them, but it would encourage those old-age pensioners—over half the total—who at the moment cannot afford the fee, to be able to do so.
I was able to show in Committee that at the moment 50 per cent. of all pensioners do not have a licence. Our calculations showed that reducing the fee by half would mean that probably another million pensioners would think it worth having a licence. The figures then become much more reasonable. I hope that the Secretary of State for Social Services will listen to this point, which I


do not think he has appreciated. My point is that there will be about another million customers for a licence.

Sir K. Joseph: I assure my hon. Friend that I carefully read the entire proceedings on the Bill that he introduced, including his description of this view of his.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Would my hon. Friend agree that the Minister—I am sure inadvertently—replying to an intervention of mine, misunderstood what I had said? I also had the honour to serve on the Committee which considered my hon. Friend's Bill. We were told then that it would cost £12½ million to have a half-rate licence for all pensioners. but the question I asked was whether that would not be reduced——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. Is this a question to the Minister or to the hon. Gentleman who has the floor?

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: No, Sir. I am asking my hon. Friend whether he did not consider that the Minister had misunderstood what I had said.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: May I remind the hon. Lady that many hon. Members want to speak and that she should be careful with her inteventions?

Mr. Farr: I have more or less grasped my hon. Friend's point, as I think has the whole House. There is no doubt that the £12 million estimate in Committee would be considerably reduced, by the number of new customers who could afford a television set if the licence was available at half price, to a figure nearer the estimate which I made after many weeks of calculation—an annual cost of £7½ million to the Exchquer.
The Minister is misguided if he thinks that this agitation has occurred simply because of the 5p licence. Tunstall's "Old and Alone" was written in 1966, before the 5p licence was thought of, and he illustrated many tragic cases. There is a good deal of bitterness, however, being caused by this situation. People cannot see why those in council warden bungalows who get this 5p licence and possibly own their own motor cars should be in this position, while people next

door in their own homes cannot afford to have a TV set.
Something must be done. Old-age pensioners are helped in many ways by society today. They can have free or reduced bus fares. Many communities give them free or reduced admission prices to football matches and cricket matches and to sports centres, and help them in many other ways. They get free medical and dental services.
I ask my right hon. Friends to open their eyes to the prospects that lie ahead, let the old-age pensioners enter a new dimension in this country, and give them a half-price television licence.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Harper: I, too, shall be brief and to the point. The motion is short, sharp, clear and certainly to the point. It needs no clarification from me. It seeks to correct an anomaly which has existed for a number of years by the granting of reduced price television licences to retired people who live in accommodation which is either private or administered by local authorities under three Acts—the National Health Service Act 1946, the National Insurance Act 1948 and Part V of the Housing Act 1957.
The latter Act states that in order to get the cheap licence one has to live in a home having communal facilities and supervised by a warden. We now have the opprobrious phrase "warden accommodation". The difficulties have been increased by the different interpretations of respective head postmasters. Some old people get the reduced licence fee and others do not, although living in similar accommodation.
I served on the Committee of the Bill referred to by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). which sought television licences at 50 per cent. of the full licence fee—which was then £6—for retirement pensioners. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) and the late Jack McCann, I tabled an amendment to reduce the licence fee still further, to 5p, in order to bring it into line with the requirements of the people of whom we are talking—the people in private or local authority-administered homes. We defeated the Government, although it was a Private Member's Bill, by six votes to


five. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Government did not allow time for the completion of that Bill's remaining stages.
That was about 20 months ago. The anomaly continues to operate within a cocoon of irritation. It would have been interesting to have a debate in the House, as we are having today, to see how the House would have divided then.
Even some Government Members are fed up with this state of affairs. It has continued long enough; hence the motion, which if accepted, will put the whole conception of licences on a more equitable basis. The present situation divides pensioners into the "haves" and the "have nots". This has caused a great deal of resentment and bitterness.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been deluged with mail on the subject. I have had as much correspondence on this topic as I did at the time of the passing of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill. That indicates the importance and seriousness of the problem.
Many solutions have exercised the minds of hon. Members. The last solution, to which I listened carefully, was the one proposed by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who asked a Question last week to ascertain the cost to the Treasury if licences for old-age pensioners—he called them "elderly citizens"—were reduced to £2. The reply was that it would cost £20 million. Although that would be helpful, I do not agree with it because it would continue the present anomaly and it would be only a short time before we were all under pressure again from old people to bring the licence fee down to 5p. In Committee the Minister's predecessor said that it would cost the Treasury about £l2½ million to give a licence at 50 per cent, and double that to apply a 5p rate.

Mr. Michael Fidler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Harper: No. Save the applause and everything else until later.
I agree that these figures are out of date, as they were given about 20 months ago but as the number of retired pensioners over the age of 60—including widows—on 31st December 1972 was 7·9 million, of whom 2·2 million

are in receipt of supplementary benefits, this means, at a rough estimate, that it would cost the Treasury between £30 million and £35 million. This might be further reduced, taking into consideration the loss of £5 million through the licence fee dodgers, who have already got free television, and the cost of collection, which is approximately £7 million. I ask the Minister to give us the correct figures. I may not be correct within a million or two.
To allow free television licences would be well worth the cost involved, and the revenue loss to the Treasury could be taken out of general taxation. Dear me, we are talking about £40 or £50 million here, when the first thing the Government did on coming into office was to give away £300 million to those who already had enough money and at the same time raise prices of school meals and take away the kid's milk. I do not want to be controversial, so I leave that matter there.
My last point, which has been touched upon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), concerns the word "concession". The Minister has repeatedly said, in letters and answers, today and previously—he says it in his sleep—that it is not a concession. He says that it is a matter of definition. The Minister's predecessor said in Committee on the Television Licensing (Elderly Persons) Bill that the television licence was for homes and not persons. But he also said:
If one has two homes"—
for instance, one in the North and one in the South—
and a television set in each, and one travels between one and the other and never operates the two together"—
one would have to be a Houdini to do that—
only one television licence may be needed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 30th June 1971; c. 19.]
That is two televisions for one licence. The definition is what counts.
I realise that. The Minister realises it. We all realise it. But do the old-age pensioners realise it? They understand only that it is a concessionary licence for some and not others. If the Minister tried to explain this to old-age pensioners he would certainly get the raspberry from them. One would not blame them.


They might do a "Harvey Smith" if they were told about this. The Minister will not get away with that lame clarification.
I concede that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house) tried hard to correct the anomaly when he was Postmaster-General but he only made matters worse.
The only way that this matter can be resolved so that we can get out of the mess and not create further anomalies is to grant free television licences to old-age pensioners and to all the rest of us. We should take the money which has to he found from general taxation. It could be put on other taxes. Ultimately that would be fairer to everyone concerned.
If the Government decide not to accept the motion I shall press for the subject of the abolition of television licences to he high on the priority list of a future Labour Government which, needless to say, I should rather have sooner than later.
The Government could give serious consideration to the amendment, which would be acceptable if pensioners got a proper living pension. I, too, on principle, am against fringe benefits. But it may be 30 or 40 years before pensions can be raised sufficiently to do away with fringe benefits and we can say to pensioners, "Stand on your own feet. You have a good pension, which is a living wage." Until then, we shall have to have the fringe benefits.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. John Sutcliffe: I agree with the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) that we want a much better deal for the pensioner. We want the gap between the annual pension increase and the annual rise in the cost of living to be widened much further, so that the pensioner receives a substantial rise in his standard of living. The Conservative Government have done much more in this respect than did their Labour predecessors.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) said that television is a comfort to the pensioner. I feel that it is both a comfort and a necessity to the vast majority of pensioners. So far in this debate nothing has been said about the demand by pensioners. I say this in

the context of the situation on Teesside, where we have a strong pensioners' association and a very active pensioners' lobby.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services knows only too well that there is strength in that association, because he met its members last Friday and gave them almost an hour of his time. The Teesside pensioners have held rallies well over 1,000 strong. I attended a recent rally. Hundreds of pensioners came to this House by bus to lobby their hon. Members. Undoubtedly the strongest chorus of protest I heard at the town hall rally that I attended was on the issue of the haphazard unfairness of the TV licence concession. No doubt this feeling has been sparked off by the 170,000 pensioners who pay £6·95 less than the rest. This feeling will continue so long as this anomaly continues.
The Government amendment suggests that the situation can be adequately dealt with under the powers in the 1968 Public Health Act but the trouble is that local authorities do not regard television licences as a priority and have not a great deal of money to spend. Help could be given to the 1,800,000 pensioners—approximately a quarter of all pensioners—who are in receipt of supplementary benefits if the Supplementary Benefits Commission was empowered to help with the cost of television licences and not just to disregard grants from voluntary bodies. This would have the advantage of bringing in those who are severely handicapped and others who, though not on pensions, are possibly in greater need than many pensioners. These categories are not covered by the Opposition motion; indeed, they are not covered by the other amendments.
The problem we have to examine is that which is highlighted in the Government amendment. First, we say "cash" not "kind"—but "kind" is just what these 170,000 pensioners receive, regardless of need. However many Christmas bonuses we give, the 170,000 pensioners involved will be that much better off than are the pensioners paying £7.
When we talk of helping only those in need we come up against another feeling of unfairness which is equally rife—the feeling that we exalt the feckless, penalise those thrifty people who have saved, and discourage those families who


have shouldered the responsibility of supporting elderly relations when they should be applauded and given every help. In bearing this responsibility such families save the taxpayers the cost of providing specialist accommodation for elderly relatives.
It is no good retreating behind the argument that the £25 million or £30 million can be better used by adding 5p to the pension, or in other ways as priority dictates. The demand for this concession, and action on this anomaly—an anomaly largely created by the Labour Government—exists, and we cannot ignore it. I am sure that eventually the Government will tackle the problem by waiving the licence fee for those who have to live on pension and have savings up to a certain limit. Obviously there would have to be such a restriction because it would be ludicrous to provide a licence to the few capitalist pensioners who have colour television. I consider that the Government will eventually recognise that television is regarded as a necessity. But since there are non-pensionable categories such as the disabled and others in equal need, if the powers of the Supplementary Benefits Commission are extended those people can also be helped, and the creation of new anomalies can be kept to the minimum.

5.57 p.m.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) rightly highlighted the anomaly between the 5p concessionary television licence and the £7 which all other retirement pensioners have to pay. There is no more hurtful grievance than that which is based on the feeling that there is no reason for discrimination between two groups of people who in general have the same needs and the same resources. I believe that there was a strong case for concessionary television licences to the elderly before the introduction of the 5p licence, but that case has been considerably sharpened since that time.
This gives force to the campaign now being waged among retired pensioners' organisations for a concessionary licence for all pensioners treating them all on the same basis. Hon. Members from all constituencies must have received many communications such as that which I now

have before me—in this case from an association in my constituency called the Fishlake Over-Sixties Club. It is a petition that contains 30 signatures and is worded as follows:
We urge you as our Member of Parliament to plead the case of the senior citizens with regard to television licences. We understand that in certain circumstances a reduced rate is available and we feel that such concessions should be for all pensioners. We ask you to press Her Majesty's Government to eliminate this preferential treatment and to apply the reduced rate to all pensioners.
That puts the case in a nutshell. The disparity between the 5p and the sum of £7 for a licence has caused widespread resentment.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has taken account of the fact that if the Opposition's proposal were put into effect it would give a free licence to 1·7 million households in which there is a young and active family with a pensioner living in the household, and would mean that they would be relieved of paying £11·9 million, which would increase public expenditure by that amount.

Dr. Marshall: I regard that as a spurious intervention on a quite different point. I am referring to the situation in which some people enjoy a great benefit which is denied to others.
Some people are eligible for the 5p concessionary licence but do not take it up because they feel they would be making use of an unfair advantage. There are people in warden accommodation who feel that because they are in such accommodation they already have a benefit, and that it should not be added to by claiming the 5p concessionary licence. Two pensioners can live in the same road in almost identical property, one with the concessionary licence and one without. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) said, differences of interpretation by different head postmasters can cause anomalies on the boundaries between postal districts. A certain class of accommodation on one side of the boundary will entitle the pensioner to qualify while the identical property in identical conditions on the other side will not. That causes a great deal of bewildered resentment among those who


find it difficult to understand all the ins and outs of regulations on these matters.
The oddest situation that I have discovered was in the borough of Spen-borough, in the West Riding. In that borough there is a block of flats the ground floor of which was constructed and financed to house elderly people. Because of that the occupants have a warden to visit them from time to time, and they qualify for the 5p licence. The people living immediately above them, who are also old-age pensioners and who have to go up a flight of stairs to reach their flats, are living in property which had been built as normal council property and are therefore unable to qualify for the 5p licence.
It is imperative that all retirement pensioners who need a television licence should be treated on the same basis, and that all the present discrimination should be wiped out. The only way in which this can be done is to bring them all to the level of the present concession. Yet because the 5p concessionary licence is a nonsense, in that it costs more than 5p to collect, this leads to the only logical conclusion that all old-age pensioners who need a television licence for premises where they are the householders should be eligible for a free licence.
The argument put forward by the Government is that this would be impossible, because it would be too expensive, but at the same time the Government are saying that they would not wish to see an increase in benefits in kind—that they want to see cash benefits. Well, let us provide the cash by a grant to the BBC to finance concessionary licences for all old-age pensioners. In trying to advance the argument that pensioners should be paid in cash rather than in kind the Government are hiding behind a smoke screen. If the money is to be available it should be channelled in this way, because that is how the pensioners want it. They want help in the form of a free television licence. The Government can then leave the question of the level of the pension to another day.

6.4 p.m.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I agree wholeheartedly with what the Minister said when he commented on

the Government's record on social services and with the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services when he commented on our record on uprating pensions. I should like to take issue with the Minister for Posts and Telecommunications, however, when he said:
I am sure that if any old-age pensioner … were asked if he was in favour of having something for nothing the answer would be 'Yes.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November 1972; Vol. 847, c. 400.]
I could not disagree more because, as one of my old-age pensioners said to me: "We don't want owt for nowt". When our local council offered the old-age pensioners free travel in spite of their protests that they did not want it, they held a conference attended by 350 old-age pensioners, of whom only 14 voted in favour of free travel. It was precisely for that reason that I put down my amendment. My old-age pensioners are proud and independent, and they do not want owt for nowt, but they cannot afford the full rate for the licence. I raised this point with the previous Minister for Posts and Telecommunications in Committee on the Television Licensing (Elderly Persons) Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), and I was told then that if we advocated a half-rate television licence for old-age pensioners many families who had old people living with them would be given free television as a result. I believe that if families shoulder their responsibilities in this way they are entitled to all the help they can get, because they are not only saving the country money; they are preventing unhappiness.
It was in an attempt to meet this point and to reduce the amount of cash that would have to be spent, on the principle that I prefer half a loaf to no loaf at all, that I sought to amend the motion, although my amendment, which if accepted would reduce the rate for pensioners living alone or with another pensioner, was not selected. The figures we were given during the debate on the Bill were for all old-age pensioners to have half rates—not for the proposal that I put forward, which would be half rates for pensioners living alone or with another pensioner.
I share the view that television is not a luxury. The killer disease in old age is


not necessarily cold or hunger. A person is much more susceptible to cold and hunger if he or she is miserable. One hon. Member made a very important point when he said that television brought in a new dimension, because it meant that pensioners would invite their friends in and would get out of the terrible cocoon of lineliness which is the curse of old age. That is why I believe that the Government should make a concession tonight. I am not in general in favour of benefits in kind, but this is one thing that old people need.
I see that one of my hon. Friends the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) is brandishing a card upon which it is possible to stick stamps to pay for a television licence. But old people are already putting stamps on a card to pay for their electricity, and I am at the moment trying to get the gas authorities to introduce a scheme to do the same thing. Old people cannot afford to stamp a third card for a television licence. I beg the Minister, who is so considerate to old people and to all those in need, to treat this as an exceptional case and try to meet our point.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes (Widnes): I am sure that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) will forgive me if, because of pressure of time, I do not take up her points in detail. I am, however, much attracted to the first part of her amendment, which provides that the concession should go to a pensioner who is living alone or with another pensioner. Her amendment is spoiled by the reference to a reduced rate. The Opposition amendment speaks of free licences, which is what I support.
The hon. Members for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) made speeches in stark contrast to what we heard from the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, who said that he had looked at the various anomalies that would be created by the abolition of the television licence fee for old people and then systematically found excuses to reject each of the arguments with all the initiative and energy of a mesmerised rabbit. This is an important issue for old people, and I ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to look

at the matter in a slighly different light from that cast by the debate so far.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) referred to television as the town crier of the twentieth century. It is, indeed. I suggest that television is a prime social service. It is one of the best and most effective means of communication with old people that the Secretary of State for Social Services and the community in general have. It is also one of the cheapest. It is far cheaper for the right hon. Gentleman to get in touch with old people by means of television than by the circulars which his Department issues, because he knows that the information is going into their homes. That, in itself, is a very important aspect of our consideration whether we should create a licence-free service, because of the enormous benefits that television can bring to old people, and not only for entertainment. Of course, we want old people to enjoy television. Indeed, I do not think that enough attention is given by either of the channels to the aspect of entertainment for old people.
There is, however, another aspect. Many people facing retirement after working 40 years or more are at a loss to know what to do with their time, and their wives are certainly at a loss to know what to do when their husbands are under their feet all day. Television could use the time when the test card is on the screen to put out programmes of direct help and benefit to old people. That should be a free service. It ought to be provided as a social service. There are many benefits to which old people are entitled but which they do not claim. I know that this is a worry to the right hon. Gentleman. They do not claim these benefits because they do not know about them. Television could be an enormous help in enabling old people to receive this information.
I should like the television medium to recognise that there are 7 million pensioners and they all have needs. I should like the Government to recognise that in television they have the most important link and means of communication that any Government Department could wish to have, direct with the homes of people who need a service. In addition, television


provides people with a contact with the outside world, which is likely to make them less lonely. If more old people had television sets there would be less likelihood of occurrences such as we have had in my constituency, when people have been found dead in their homes, months after they have died. That sort of tragedy occurs in this country because of lack of communication and loneliness. Television is a most important means of communication, and for that reason if for no other the Government ought to look upon it as a social service.
It is nonsense for the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to advance the argument that if free television licences were available to old people those pensioners without television sets would resent the fact. Nothing could be further from the truth—any more than that a person who has not got a wireless set resents the fact that no licence fee is required for radio. Incidentally, I remind my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) that that concession did not exist during most of the years when our party was in government. The proposed concession would not cause resentment, any more than a person with a dog resents the fact that a person who owns a cat does not need a licence. Therefore, I maintain that the right hon. Gentleman advanced a nonsensical argument.
I hope that the Secretary of State for Social Services will look upon this motion in a kindly way, and that he regards television as a vital means of communication in this modern age.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Tom King: All who have listened to this debate will accept that on both sides of the House there is recognition of the importance and value of television in the lives of old people. Having said that, I think the debate has clearly shown almost from the start, when the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) was totally torpedoed just over his left shoulder by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Baxter) in a valid intervention, that the Opposition motion is, to say the least, highly dubious in present circumstances.
Two of the most valuable speeches were made by the right hon. Member

for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) and the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), both of whom made serious contributions to the debate. If we face the situation practically, we must appreciate that everything that could be said has already been said on this matter——

Mr. John Mendelson: Sit down then.

Mr. King: —and I am therefore going to be brief. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) enjoys interrupting people who are trying to make serious contributions. I, as a relative newcomer to this House, have observed that he enjoys interrupting nearly every speaker regardless of the point which is being made.
I am concerned that one point has not been mentioned, although it was referred to obliquely by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes). The hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) said quite rightly that we must be fair to all pensioners. We recognise that there is an anomaly in connection with old people's homes but, as the right hon. Member for Wednesbury said, we do not remove one anomaly by creating an even bigger one.
The situation is that if we gave free television licences to all old people, a benefit would be given to 80 per cent. of all pensioners and the House would be ignoring the claims of 20 per cent. of the pensioners who, for reasons of their own, do not have television sets. Some perhaps cannot afford to do so; others choose not to have television, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) said, some cannot receive it anyway. It seems to me that it would be wrong if we went for this benefit in kind in this way and ignored the equal rights of 20 per cent. of all pensioners to some benefit.

Mr. John Silkin: Is the hon. Gentleman advocating a return to radio licences, because there are 2 million deaf people?

Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman knows that with radio licences, obviously, a very much smaller sum is involved. That is certainly not what I was advocating.
It seems to me that we are concerned about the level of benefit for old people,


and that is of fairly general concern throughout the House. I am not fighting in an obstructive way and saying that there is no case for help but I object strongly to the idea of giving help purely to those who have a television set at the moment. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is to reply to this debate because it seems to me that this is much more a matter for him than it is for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. I believe it is within the Department of Social Services that the proper answer to the problem lies.
I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his Budget Statement on 6th March we shall hear a much more constructive and fairer answer to the problem. It seems to me that in tackling the general problem of the income levels of old people assistance should be provided regardless of whether they have a television set or not, so that the benefit will be enjoyed equally by all pensioners. This would be a much fairer method of helping old-age pensioners. It is by this method that I hope the Government will be able to help, rather than by giving selective help of the kind advocated in this motion.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: The hon and expansive Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cyril Smith) came to the House with much trumpetings, evident in his maiden speech, that he would campaign and fight for free television licences for old-age pensioners. In the mornings, he comes on our radio, and each week he talks to the Press, calling us all clowns and accusing this honourable House of being a circus. The hon. Gentleman's coverage outside the House is expansive. I only hope that Rochdale will note that his coverage in the Chamber tonight is not.
There are hon. Members on both sides who take seriously—far more seriously than does the hon. Member for Rochdale—the problem of the anomalies in the present situation. We recognise that in trying to help old-age pensioners through the introduction of the 5p old people's home concessionary licence, the Labour Government created an arbitrary border-

line which has led to difficulty. It is all very well for us to explain among ourselves the working of the concessionary licence scheme and the way the borderline operates. Old-age pensioners simply do not understand it and, frankly, I do not blame them.
As several hon. Members have pointed out, an adventurous go-ahead local authority and an adventurous postmaster can apply a wide interpretation of the Wireless Telegraphy Act Exemption Regulations, in a genuine attempt to be helpful, but anomalies are still created. In my own constituency, both the Nuneaton Borough Council and the Bedworth Urban District Council have tried to extend their warden coverage so as to bring the maximum number of old-age pensioners within the concessionary television licence scheme. The trouble is that in trying to help in that way they have given rise to even more grievances and grumbles. The truth is that all those who try to work the present system and help old-age pensioners come up against the arbitrary borderline.
I put the question directly to the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications: let us assume that an adventurous local authority decides that all its old-age pensioners in a certain part of the town or in a certain scheme shall be covered by the warden service, and that all old-age pensioners shall have access to communal facilities. This state of affairs can be found, for example, at an old people's day centre providing meals, refreshments and the rest. What happens when a local authority tries to use the definition in the regulations to cover a whole area or category of persons in that way? It seems to me that the local authority and the postmaster would be perfectly within their rights in trying to push this definition. I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter further, since many authorities and local councillors now find themselves in a difficult position, wondering how far they can extend the concession.
If the Minister argues that even more anomalies would be created by further action he could not be more wrong. There could not possibly be more anomalies than we have now. If he has any doubts about that, let him try to explain some of the anomalies in the present system to old-age pensioners.
I come now to a constituency case which I have previously tried to air in the House without much success. A constituent of mine, a Mrs. Storer, moved into Edyvean Walker Court, Nuneaton, and, very conscientiously, on 9th May last purchased her own television licence. The warden applied for a concessionary licence for the whole scheme, and it was granted on 22nd June—six weeks later. Because she was conscientious, Mrs. Storer had bought her licence in advance. She need not have done it. She, too, could have been a television licence dodger. However, under the regulations which the Minister promulgates, she cannot get a penny of her £7 licence fee back.
In the face of borderline cases like that the right hon. Gentleman ought not to stick to his regulations. He cannot defend them, and I urge him to look at the matter again. What is more, when he does so I urge him to reject the approach that only supplementary benefit pensioners ought to have free television licences. We have quite enough means testing in this country, and to put the television licence on means test as well would be utterly regressive.
I take the point made by various hon. Members about the financial difficulties of the British Broadcasting Corporation, and I answer in this way: if we can give a block grant to the National Coal Board so that it may cope with the consequences of redundancy payment schemes for mine workers and a block grant to British Rail to help with the social costs of running communally necessary railway lines, why should we not give a grant to the BBC to cover the cost of concessionary licences to old-age pensioners? There are several precedents already in relation to our existing statutory corporations, and I suggest that similar assistance could be extended to the BBC.
If we are concerned about the BBC's finances in the longer term, it would be possible to make capital grants from Government expenditure to the corporation for the building of aerials, transmitters, and so on, leaving the BBC as independent as it is now.
I acknowledge that we are talking the language of priorities, but a Government who can give £300 million in tax relief to

surtax payers, and can think of spending £3,000 million on building an airport at Maplin which no one will want in 15 years' time, and of carving up London with ringways costing £2,000 million, yet cannot spend £25 million for this purpose, have their priorities sadly wrong.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: The debate has been notable for short speeches, and I hope not to break the sequence. It has been notable also for the way in which what I would call rather sickly emotion has been kept out of the argument. We all recognise the problem, we are concerned to solve it, and it is a question of the method which is the matter of opinion.
My position is that I wish to help those who are in need and cannot afford to buy a television licence because their income is inadequate. I cannot support the motion because I have never understood why, for example, a retired field-marshal should have his television licence free, as he would under the Opposition's proposal. I wish to be somewhat more selective. I believe, as most Conservatives do, that one should give aid to those who are in need.

Mr. John Mendelson: That is no argument. How many field-marshals are there?

Mr. Marten: I wish that the hon. Member would keep quiet or rise to his feet and intervene in the proper way. He should have the sense to realise that I was giving but one example of many such persons. I am in favour of helping those who are in need.
The amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), which was not selected, refers to pensioners living alone or with one other pensioner and she has dealt with that aspect of the matter very well. I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) when he says that television is now an accepted part of the life of old people. For the elderly, it is a window on to the wide world outside.
It is my wish, as I say, to help those who find it hard to pay. But I recognise the other side of the argument which has been put by the Government, though I have some criticism of their amendment


for its use of that awful expression which Ministers in either Government use when they intend not to do anything—the argument that "successive Governments" have not done something, so they will not do it, either.
We are politicians. I do not mind whether the Labour Government did not do it, or whether we have not done it. If we do not do it now, if the Opposition get back they will have to do it after today's motion, so it is coming anyhow. Why not set about it now? I speak here as a democrat. Over the effluxion of time, in, say, 15 years, the Opposition have a good sporting chance of returning to power.
So the argument that successive Governments have been against such a scheme is really a non-argument because it is an argument for never changing anything. As my right hon. Friend knows, in my constituency I have promised my old-age pensioners that I will fight for something to be done. I shall not retreat at the first whiff of grape-shot in a debate like this; and, unless I get a major concession to what I and my colleagues want, I cannot support the Government amendment. I make that clear.
I want to deal with the question of benefits in cash but not in kind. This is really a curious argument because it has already been admitted that local government can give these benefits in kind. If local government can do it, why cannot the central Government do it? Even the local social security offices give benefits in kind. If a pensioner suffers from great coldness, the local social security office will provide a chit for him to get coal. That is a benefit in kind. It will give supplementary benefit to someone whose children need clothing, but if the money is spent on drink instead, it will give a chit for the clothing instead of cash. Those are but two examples where the principle has been breached already, so there is no reason why this benefit for the television licence should not be paid.
If one asked people with television sets whether they were in favour of the proposition that old-age pensioners, within wide or narrow limits, should be helped, everyone would say "Yes". I suggest, therefore, that we challenge them to give help. We should suggest that they could help pensioners by paying

a little more for their own licences—it would not be more than about 50p a year—so that they would all feel that they had helped. In other words, there would he a surcharge in order to help old-age pensioners. In this way, there would be no charge on public funds at all. We would not be going out with the begging bowl for pensioners, which they would not like. I hope that my right hon. Friend will do some research into this proposition and find out how much it would cost at various grades of reduced licence fee—for example, at £2 instead of £7. We would then see how much the various reductions would increase the ordinary licence fee.
The other option, which my right hon. Friend himself mentioned, is that perhaps some other way should be found of financing the BBC, thus abolishing the whole licensing system. I have not yet heard mentioned a method which makes sense, however. The reality of the situation is that the BBC, if we are to change the system, must be self-financing like the IBA. I am not a great television fan but I do not object to the advertising on the IBA. Indeed, quite a bit of it is amusing. But concession to the old-age pensioners on the licence fee is coming—I am sure of that—and I wish the Government would give an assurance that they intend to do something about it.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. David Clark: I will not follow the speech of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) directly, although I agree with a great deal of what he said. Almost every hon. Member has referred to cash benefits or benefits in kind. This is something of a myth. Almost all of us would like to see the pensioners getting a high enough standard of living to be able to afford without difficulty the television licence, but we all know that that is not likely to happen in the near future.
In the rather subtle changes in our very complicated society, we get periods when certain measures which cannot affect the general public too much can nevertheless affect various pressure groups. With that in mind, certain concessions have already been accepted. Many fringe benefits have been readily accepted by old people and given readily by Governments and


local authorities. Concessionary fares are a good example.
But there are exceptions. Some hon. Members opposite have said that television is a luxury, but I think that the majority view in the House is that it is no longer a luxury but a necessity. Indeed, for old people it is more than that. It is often a means of making life tolerable to them, of keeping them in touch with the world, of avoiding loneliness. Anything we can do to help is obviously right, as so many hon. Members have pointed out.
The Central Statistical Office shows that, while 78 per cent. of our people watch in any day, it is the old people who watch television most among all adults. They rely on television. We all get tragic cases when elderly constituents tell us that they could get a television set second-hand but could not afford the £7 licence. That is a tragedy in this affluent society.
There are changes in society which make the situation worse. They make great problems for old people. We have witnessed the growth in car ownership and the freedom this has given to so many people. But it has coincided with a reduction in public transport facilities. The people who suffer from that are mainly the old. They do not own cars. They are stranded when there are no buses. The rundown in public transport has in turn increased the necessity for old people to have television.
By a strange coincidence, which often happens in life, television has itself also created conditions which make it more necessary for old people to have television. It has created a society in which people stay at home—a self-reliant society, as one may call it in a generous mood, or a selfish society, as one may call it if one is feeling ungenerous. But the pattern is there throughout. Community life has been put under great strain. Talk to any organiser of any voluntary society and he will tell one of the low degree of support and of the difficulty in running his organisation because people are so home-bound and watch television so much.
So, the old person is stranded. He cannot travel much out of his community

because of poor public transport. If he stays within his community, the chances are that there is nothing outside his home for him. The result is that he has to say at home. That is all the more reason why old people need television. It keeps them company and passes away the hours. Many old people cannot afford the licence fee. We must do something. Obviously, there is bitterness between different groups of old-age pensioners, but that has been expressed already in the debate and I need not repeat it. It is the duty of the Government to try to ensure that all the elderly people who want and need television are able to have it.
Various difficulties have been pointed out, but in the end we have to look much more deeply at the method of funding the BBC and try to find a different method. I was attracted by the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) of some form of general taxation to be paid to a broadcasting council for the financing of the BBC, but the basic point is that licensing is out of date. I suppose that 95 per cent. of people have television. Let us save the £7½ million spent on administration, the £5 million involved in licence evasion and the £30 million which will be needed in giving concessions. By the time we have done that there is not very much left out of the £135 million. Financing by means of, say, the income tax system would mean that the low-paid and the pensioners would pay nothing for their television and the field-marshal would pay something. That is the way to do it.
Whilst we are waiting for that day to come, let the Government act, and act now. During Question Time two or three weeks ago I described the Minister's decision as being mean. I do not detract from that statement at all, because in comparison with the £2,500 million for defence and the £3,000 million for Maplin, people regard an expenditure of £20 million or £30 million as chicken-feed. The Government should act now.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. David Waddington: Bearing in mind his legal connections, I was somewhat surprised when the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) invited us to forget precedents and the lessons of the past. I would


not for one moment advocate that we should feel ourselves bound not to accept the proposition put by the Opposition simply because previous Governments have not accepted it, but it would be nonsense not to acknowledge that some very important lessons are to be drawn from the precedents, and some important lessons to be learned if we consider what has happened when the House has supported the introduction of this sort of concession.
I invite the attention of the House to the history of the tobacco duty concession, which was introduced by Dr. Dalton in 1947 after he had put up the tobacco duty by 43 per cent. and had acknowledged that if nothing had been done to help the old-age pensioners a most appalling burden would have been placed on the shoulders of those old-age pensioners who smoked. It is very instructive to read the HANSARD reports from that year right through until the time when the concession was abolished. In no time at all the Chancellor of the Exchequer was being attacked by numerous people who said that it was grossly unfair that only old-age pensioners should have the concession, and in no time at all he was being attacked from both sides of the House by those who said that it was grossly unfair that smokers should be helped by the State when non-smokers were not so helped. It was eventually agreed that the whole thing was nonsense, and the concession was abolished.
If this proposed concession were granted I would bet my bottom dollar that within a year or two we would find the Chancellor of the Exchequer being attacked from all sides by people advancing just the same arguments, and saying how unfair it was, for instance, that old-age pensioners should have a free television licence, whereas the disabled war pensioners did not get the same concession.
Returning to the tobacco concession, it is most interesting to look through HANSARD over the years and to find that, in the same month, on one occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked whether he would extend the concession to disabled war pensioners, on another occasion whether he would extend it to all Service pensioners and to widows, and on another occasion whether he would issue tobacco tokens—I cannot quite see

why—to teachers, policemen and civil servants. On yet another occasion he was asked to give tobacco concession tokens to everyone over the age of 65 who had drawn money from the National Assistance Board. The history of that concession on its own illustrates the difficulties and dangers involved in granting a concession in kind.
I do not want to become involved in a party political dogfight, but I must point out that the proposed concession was not granted by the previous Government, and did not appear in the 1970 manifesto. To refer to only one statement made by a member of the Government of that day, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said in 1964, when he was Postmaster-General, that he had concluded that it would be wrong for him to seek powers to make a concession which would create serious anomalies. I urge the House to agree that if this concession, advocated by the Opposition, were granted it would lead to serious anomalies.
I think that the Government are opposing the motion not on grounds of finance but—I hope and think—on grounds of fairness; on the ground that it would be unfair to grant this concession to a limited category of people and to refuse it to all these other categories, such as the disabled, the war pensioners, the war widows, and the rest.
I agree with the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), who, in his amendment asserts that the cost of a television licence inflicts hardship on many low income groups and not only on retirement pensioners. I also agree with him that in view of the incidence of evasion of payment of licence fees and the cost of collecting the licence fees a very good argument can be made out for changing the whole system of financing the BBC.
At the same time, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the BBC should be financed out of general taxation. I would go the whole hog and say that there is a very good case for advertising on at least some channels. I cannot see how the public would suffer if, instead of the BBC indulging in the most nauseating self-advertising—"Beautiful BBC", "Wonderful BBC", and the rest—it advertised something useful. The vast bulk of rubbish on BBC


would not become any worse rubbish by being interrupted by a bit of advertising.
The present system is quite incomprehensible to the bulk of the population. The average man cannot see why the BBC should be financed out of licensing and the ITV not. When asked for the licence fee the average man is quite likely to reply, as, indeed was said to me by a constituent, "I can't pay, so will you please adjust my set so that I can just watch Granada?"
I recognise that there will not be such a massive change in the financing of the BBC in a matter of months or even years, but at least I hope that the Government will consider the suggestion that I made some time ago, that when the licence fee is as high as it is now there is a case for payment by quarterly instalments. The average working man does not walk about the place with that many pounds in his pocket, and should not normally be expected to pay £6 or £7 in one fell swoop. It is often said that this point is met by the fact that the Post Office issues a card which can he stamped by the person, enabling him to save up for the licence, but I do not agree that that meets my point.
I agree with those who say that in our present society a television is now a necesisty for old people, so that there is a very good argument for a substantial and generous increase in the old-age pension at the next review, simply as a recognition that these large expenses are now necessary expenses and not luxuries.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. John Golding: Our society treats its old people very shabbily. It often rejects them from family life and keeps the bulk of them in poverty. It subjects many to loneliness and isolation.
Today, we can do something about that. In the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act we have made provision for television for some—unfortunately, the few. We should go on to tackle the problem for all old people. The old are very badly treated. They pay out almost a whole week's money for their television licence. If the average family paid on the same basis it would cost it £28.
We can demonstrate that on average the old receive less for their licence fee than the average family does. The pensioner's set is likely to be watched by far fewer people. It is more likely to be old, and not to be able to receive all channels. Of the 1 million 405-line sets that will remain in 1975, many will belong to pensioners. The pensioners are therefore often paying more for the service they receive than are the average family. The present system is very unjust.
The licence fee makes a difference to whether pensioners can afford a television set at all. The figure of 95 per cent. of families having television sets has been quoted. In a Standing Committee the right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway) once said that one-third of pensioner households did not have television sets. We must ask why there is that difference between 95 per cent. ownership on average and only 66 per cent in pensioner households. To some extent it will be because television is a new-fangled thing, but there is ample evidence that the reason for the difference is that the old cannot afford the licence. Many of them will not go into debt to find the licence fee, and they will not practice evasion.
Therefore, it is clear, particularly as the Supplementary Benefits Commission refuses to treat television as an essential, that there is need to deal with the problem of television for the elderly.
I am aware of the objections that the Government make. Despite concessionary bus fares and other concessions, objections are still raised to payments in kind. It is also true that if the licence were increased to £9, as at least one Conservative Member has suggested, some low-paid workers would be penalised.
I am attracted to the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew). The television licence should be abolished for all and the cost of the BBC service met from general taxation, because then the charge would not be regressive. My only proviso would be to make the term of any rolling grant longer than the length of a Parliament; I would make it seven years. That suggestion should be examined by an inquiry into broadcasting.
Until we have that inquiry, something should be done urgently for pensioners,


because they are the people that were unemployed in the 1920s and 1930s and suffered deprivation and hardship during the war. The least we can do is to maintain the quality of their retirement as much as we can.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Finance is obviously the basis of the opposition by the present Government and the previous Labour Government to further television concessions to the elderly. It is said that it would be necessary to add £2 to the present television licence fee if help were given to the elderly to meet the cost of their licence. The answer is to change the source of the BBC's revenue. The Minister has said that the sale of advertising time would change the control of the BBC and make it lose its independence. I do not regard that prospect with horror, because I do not believe that the BBC has always demonstrated responsibility in programme content or balance.
The fear has been expressed that the community would look upon a television licence concession as something to be had as of right. I do not accept that. Some people are still too proud to ask for supplementary benefits. Some are on the borderline.
One hon. Member has argued that the concession would be misused, as it was in the case of tobacco. It is impossible for a television licence concession for the elderly living alone to be abused in that way.
It has also been argued that the extension of the concession would extend an existing anomaly. Certainly an anomaly exists. In one village in my constituency there are about 15 old-age pensioners' bungalows, each tenant of which obtains his television licence at the concessionary rate of 5p. A hundred yards away, on the same estate, there are 10–15 exactly similar old-age pensioners' bungalows, with the difference that they have no warden in charge. Because of that, the senior citizens in them have to pay the full television licence fee, if they can afford to own a television set and pay the full fee, even though they are no better off than the old people who have a warden in charge of them. It is an anomaly of the worst possible kind.
Naturally, in that part of my constituency there is anger, which I share deeply, that that discrimination exists within the space of a hundred yards. That ridiculous state of affairs may be repeated in many other parts of the Province, and throughout the United Kingdom. Hon. Members have referred to instances where it has occurred. The concession should apply to all old-age pensioners living on their own. Most of them find it difficult enough, with the constant rise in prices, to buy nourishing and attractive food and to pay for gas, electricity or coal.
Living alone, and often moved away from relatives and friends and away from areas that they have known for years, these people need some form of entertainment and recreation. I know the difficulties that the Government face, but they should not begrudge the elderly living alone a concession that would help to brighten their lives and provide a comfort that might have a beneficial effect on their health. The health of pensioners living alone, some of them immobile, with little or no form of recreation or entertainment, might well be affected by loneliness, which is a terrible thing.
I am deliberately being brief, as many other hon. Members want to take part in this interesting debate, so I shall refer finally to the matter in the context of Northern Ireland—my own troubled part of the United Kingdom, where fear and tension have had their terrible toll. There, the elderly have particularly suffered, and not only in the areas where the fighting has occured. They know of its existence and cannot help but fear in other areas, because they never know when a bomb might go off. They do not know what is happening in streets or towns. Fear is added to loneliness. A television licence concession would bring much comfort to old-age pensioners living alone.
Leaving aside Northern Ireland, I support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and others. If it had been selected, I should have voted for it. In the circumstances, I cannot support the Government, and I may abstain.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Michael Cocks: We are all agreed that, ideally, old


people should have a pension sufficiently large to enable them to dispose of it as they wish. In the legislation about the Common Market we were promised the prosperity which will enable this to happen. However, we must deal with the existing situation.
I, too, quibble with the word "concession". We should think instead in terms such as "recognition" or "privilege" or "right"; because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) said, the old people have borne the burden of two world wars and during the depression it was difficult for them to save or to accumulate any money or property. Anything that we are today as a nation and any standard of living or prosperity that we enjoy is due to their efforts over the years. Today many of them have a job to make ends meet and they are being crucified by rising prices. We should scrap the term "concession" and think instead in terms of recognition of the service that our elderly people rendered the nation.
The pension book should be a passport to various amenities, rights and privileges—such as free public transport. The possession of a pension book should carry the right to a free television licence; because, in the words of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), television is a window on the world and many old people have a great problem of loneliness.
If we approved the motion, many elderly people would find either that they could afford a set themselves or that people would give them one. At present people may be deterred from handing a television set to old people because they know it will involve them in heavy expenditure. I ask the Government to ignore the difficulties and to make a start on this course.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) that our elderly people need recognition and privileges for the service they rendered over the difficult years that the country went through. My disagreement lies in the way that it is sought to grant this recognition. By trying to overcome one anomaly the hon. Member and those who

think like him would create a substantial anomaly elsewhere.
It must not be forgotten that not all old-age pensioners either want television or are able to watch it. The older people get the less likely they are to be able to watch television. Eyesight fails for the over-80s. They find it difficult to watch television, and quickly tire of watching the "window on the".
How are we to help those who need help most of all? The over-80s and the very elderly are those we want to try to make a privileged class. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services made a start by introducing a pension for the over-80s. If it desired to give another £25 million to old-age pensioners, the money could be devoted to raising the pension for the over-80s. I hope that much more than £25 million will be made available for old-age pensioners in the uprating Bill which I trust will be announced shortly.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications said, the best way of helping the elderly is to raise the amount of cash they have in their pockets, thus giving them more freedom of choice spending it. We should not say to them, "Television is wonderful. It is a window on the world. You should have it." We should say, "We will give you the cash to enable you to pay for the things you want to buy, whether you want to go away from your home for a week and spend your money in that way or to spend it on buying more food."

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Any pensioner reading the report of the debate will find it difficult to understand that the House is debating a principle against the background of pensioners living in difficult circumstances. No one will disagree with the proposition that what pensioners want is adequate means to buy their own facilities. Pensioners would say that they do not have adequate means to buy their own facilities.
We must debate the question of free television licences as of right for all old-age pensioners against the background of the prevailing circumstances. I recognise the contributions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr.


Stonehouse) and my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), but the financing of the BBC, although an important subject, is not relevant to this debate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury said that other countries coped with this problem by paying substantially higher pensions than we pay, and he instanced Germany. Pension rates in Germany are substantially higher, but West Germany still gives free television licences to pensioners in receipt of social security.
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) will know that the Republic of Ireland gives free television licences to certain categories of old-age pensioner, one condition being that the pensioner must be in receipt of an old-age pension from the Department of Health and Social Security under the British Government. The situation is completely farcical.
The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) said that the Minister might wave in her face the fact that the Post Office issues a card which can be stamped weekly and used for the purchase of a television licence. Another practice which is not widely known is that many people, including old-age pensioners, are paying for their television licence by a provident society check. They borrow money to pay for the licence and at the end of the day the licence costs substantially more because of the interest that has to be paid on the money borrowed.
The parliamentary majority of the Government may prevail and the House may vote against the motion. All that that will mean is that the day of decision has been postponed. Old-age pensioners have a right to demand, and will demand, a free television licence as of right, because of the important part television plays in people's lives, and the day will come when the House of Commons will eventually decide to grant that right.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: I am unable to support the amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am equally unable to support the motion.
My main problem is the anomaly between the 5p and the £7, which I am quite

unable to explain to old-age pensioners in my constituency. I know of two people who live in the same road, one on one side and the other 15 yards away on the other side. One pays 5p and the other £7, and no amount of academic brilliance or argument will convince them that that is fair. One will look at the other through the window and say "I am paying 5p, ha-ha, and you are paying £7."
The letters I have received all stress the unfairness of this. Mrs. Newton says:
I hope you will not mind me writing. Do you think it is fair that next month I will have to pay the full amount for my television licence when someone who lives just down the road will pay 1s. Do you think this is fair?
Another person writes:
The pensioners at 'the Elms' are going to pay 5p, but I live in a flat and I have to pay £7, but I cannot afford it any more than they can. Is this fair?
It is the word "fair" that I wish to draw to the attention of the Minister. The postscript to that letter is:
My licence is due in July.
It took me a long time to see the relevance of that. The next letter says:
I wonder if you would tell me why some old-age pensioners pay for their TV licence 5p while others have to pay £7? Could you let me know quickly as my TV licence is due next week?
The most important factor that comes out of those two letters is that an old-age pensioner does not have £7 at hand to pay for the licence. I suspect, therefore, that some old-age pensioners are not buying a TV licence and are breaking the law. I expect that for the great majority it is the first time in their lives that they have ever done anything dishonest, but they are quite unable to meet the bill.
It may be said that old-age pensioners can save up the money each week. My experience is that they guard every penny. They are the only people who know to a penny how much they spend in a week. They say to me in my surgery "This week I managed to save 3p", or "This week I bought potatoes at a halfpenny less." That attitude does not go with having suddenly to pay out £7.
I wonder why the Conservative Party does not give way on minor issues such as museum charges, school milk, VAT and this issue? Why does my party


allow minor issues to lose us so much public support, when it is well known that the Secretary of State has done more in the last two years than has any Secretary of State for Social Services this century? All the issues I have mentioned together would cost the Government 12 miles of motorway per year. I ask the Secretary of State when he next goes to the Cabinet to ask for 12 miles of motorway so that pensioners can have a free TV licence. Sympathy and understanding are not enough.
The finest point that has been made this afternoon was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) when she said that the worst illness of all is loneliness. When I am in a strange city abroad I am most ill at ease. I have noticed that when I have visited old-age pensioners they cling to one physically and hold one's hand longer than is normal because they see so few people. It is vital that we should do something about this.
I am equally unable to support the Opposition motion, despite its brevity. Who put up the pensions in the last two years? Not the Labour Party. Who gave the pensioners a £10 bonus at Christmas? Not the Labour Party. Who brought in the annual pensions review? Not the Labour Party. It is hypocrisy that the Labour Party should propose this motion tonight. I well remember Disraeli's words, that Opposition is organised hypocrisy.
The Government were kind enough to make an exemption in museum charges on an amendment which I put forward. Will the Minister tonight be kind enough to consider making a small concession? If so, we on this side of the House will be able to go into the Lobby with him. If he is unable to do that, I shall be unable to support either the Opposition motion or the Government amendment, and shall abstain.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: At the beginning of the debate the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications made heavy weather of this deliberate request. I say "deliberate request" because we are not just debating the motion and the amendments. This matter has grown over six or seven years. I respond to what

the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) said so movingly to his Front Bench by saying that for my constituents for the last six or seven years this has not been a party matter.
When the Labour Government were in office I remember being called to address and to listen to a meeting of old-age pensioners 250 to 300 strong. The Conservative agent for the area—a lady below the age of 40, who could not be mistaken for an old-age pensioner—was sitting in the front row. I asked the chairman of that old-age pensioners' meeting, "What is Mrs. So-and-So doing here?" The reply was that it was all right, that she had asked to be admitted because she felt so passionately about the concession. It was a meeting at which we all felt that the concession must he extended to all retirement pensioners.
I do not want to make any cynical party points about whether or not the same pressure has been continued. What matters is that for years it has been proposed to me, as their Member, by people of all parties and of no party. I have been urged again and again, as practically all other right hon. and hon. Members have been, to put this proposal forward at the earliest opportunity. We are doing that tonight.
Therefore, I cannot for the life of me understand how people can use the time of this short debate to burden it with the question of the whole of the financial reconstruction of the BBC, or with all sorts of perfectionist arguments; whether we are going to solve almost all other social problems at one and the same time if we agree that this concession should be extended to all old-age pensioners. That is not the purpose of the debate. I cannot understand why the Minister—who, I would have hoped, would have been fighting in Cabinet to present this demand—should have made such a wooden speech as he did this afternoon.
The Government are asked now not to act in pure, cold logic. The argument which the Minister put forward—that anomalies have been created in the past—should not deter a British Government from taking action. Surely it has been a basic principle of most British Governments that they cannot go for the perfectly logical solution when a situation has grown up over the years and created


certain feelings and requests among millions of our people. The fact that if this suggestion is approved tonight many people will be satisfied and many millions of old-age pensioners will feel that an attempt is being made at some cost to the taxpayer to do right by them will outweigh any fear the Minister may have that there may be another, smaller, group of people who feel that this concession should be extended to them. If, when we started building our social services, way back in 1905, this perfectionist principle had been applied, most of the essential services would never have been created.
I conclude by making one comparison. It has been announced in a White Paper published 24 hours ago that there will be an increase in total defence expenditure to beyond £3,000 million—an actual immediate increase of £500 million. This is not the day to argue the rights and wrongs of that decision, but I tell the Government that it will be difficult for our old-age pensioners to understand why another £500 million should be made available to the defence budget if it is not possible to have between £12 million and £20 million for this necessary reform. I urge the Government, even at this late hour, to reconsider and to fall in with the obvious wishes of the large majority of the House.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I could not agree with the Opposition motion that all old-age pensioners should receive the concession in this way because it seems to me that that would mean that as well as helping those in need we should be helping pensioners who are not in need and are perfectly capable of paying the licence fee themselves. It is a case of getting one's priorities right. It is totally wrong to introduce blanket legislation of this sort. On the same principle, I would be against a blanket reduction of £2, or whatever amount has been suggested. To that also the same objection applies.
Nonetheless, I hope that my right hon. Friend can give us some indication that his mind is still fresh on the matter—that it is not totally closed to the proposition of ensuring that in some way these old-age pensioners could have access to their own televison sets because the

full cost of the licence would be rebated. It would mean some diminution of the loneliness which many of them feel.
I fully take the point about the old-age pension. We wish it could be increased so that it included this fee, but we all know that in spite of the 35 per cent. increase in the value of the pension—which we all welcome—we cannot expect a pension which will enable pensioners to pay the television licence fee.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that one way of doing this—it would be an interim solution—would be through the social work departments, in the same way as, in certain cases, free installation and free rental of telephones is provided. The social work department could consider a case in the light of certain broad criteria and guidelines laid down by the House, in the same way as it would consider the question of a telephone installation, and it could recommend to the social security office that it pay in exactly the same way as, de facto, is already happening with telephone installations.
I am not proposing a new principle; I am merely proposing the extension of a present practice which is helpful. The proposal would give maximum flexibility in dealing with those who are living alone, those who are living below certain income levels, those who are disabled, and so on. The concession could apply not only to pensioners but to others, if the social work department so recommended. It seems to me that the proposal provides for flexibility and practicality, and I would welcome it as an interim solution of what most hon. Members agree is a problem. The cost would be more than £12 million, which would result from cutting the licence in half, but no more than £20 million.
I close by urging my right hon. Friend to consider this proposal and see whether the Department of Health and Social Security could combine with the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications in devising a way of helping old-age pensioners in need to have their licence fees rebated.

7.28 p.m.

Dr. M. S. Miller (Glasgow, Kelvin-grove): I want to make only three short points. First, the House should be crystal clear that a concession does not necessarily mean—and certainly this concession does not mean—that pensioners are


to get something for nothing. Our pensioners—our senior citizens—have worked, toiled and sweated, and have given their blood all those years, and what they should be getting now are riot concessions but rights.
Secondly, on the question of kind or cash, when one talks of pensioners having enough money one observes that no one who has worked hard for his living ever has enough money for all the extras which are necessary for him to live a full life in his old age and retirement. I welcome the extension of some kind of emolument in kind, because I believe most passionately that this is a way in which we can redistribute wealth, and one way in which it can be extended to other sections of the population. There is no reason why we should not extend it to these pensioners almost immediately.
Thirdly, there is a psychological aspect. Many of our senior citizens feel that the rest of us care for them when we do something like this. There is a very strong element in the old-age pensioner section of our society that younger people do not seem to care very much about what happens to them. The mere fact that we discuss measures which are intended to help them is of tremendous psychological value to this very important section of the community.
For these reasons I urge the Government to make some concession this evening. I ask all my right hon. and hon. Friends to support most strenuously the Opposition's motion. I am sure they will.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Before calling the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie), I should like, on behalf of the whole House, to offer my sincere congratulations to everyone who has spoken in the debate. In two-and-threequarter hours, 25 hon. Members have spoken, averaging seven minutes each.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Following your comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the first thing I should say to the Secretary of State, who is to reply, is that what has impressed me most is that I have seen more hon. Members speak-

ing and trying to speak in the debate and listening to the arguments about this subject than for a very long time. That seems to indicate that there is a great strength of feeling not only in the House but throughout the country as a whole.
It has become crystal clear to me, since taking over my particular responsibility, that the majority of people in this country, irrespective of party interests, want to do something for retirement pensioners. Many people see the motion today as one way—I do not pretend that it is the only way—of helping old-age pensioners.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) and other hon. Members have said that the best way to help pensioners is to give them a greater pension. However, I argue—I hope that the Minister will accept this as a genuine contribution to the debate—that this concession, modest though it may be, is very important and would be greatly appreciated by the pensioners.
The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, who normally deals with these problems, knows, from the dozens of Questions that have been put down to him by hon. Members on this side of the House and, indeed, often by his hon. Friends, that there is a great deal of feeling about this matter. The right hon. Gentleman knows that this strength of feeling comes from a number of factors, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing) pointed out, not least the fact that older people at this time are having difficulty in making ends meet. They have to pay the same prices for food and clothes as everybody else. No matter what Ministers may say about price controls, pensioners claim that their income is not rising sufficiently to meet their expenditure. Indeed, during the last few months hon. Members opposite, in the exchanges at Question Time, have been suggesting that the most compelling reason for this concession is the effect of inflation on old people. Some go further and suggest that, whilst they understand the difficulty of price control on food, controlling the cost of a television licence is a matter that lies with the Government. It can be reduced or abolished for all old people if the Cabinet wishes it to be so.
I started my thinking on this matter some years ago, because in my constituency is one of the best clinics in the


country for old people where much research has been done in gerontology. Those who have expertise in this subject constantly impressed on my mind that the first principle of care of the elderly is for old folk to be allowed to remain in their own homes for as long as possible. It is the duty of our society to make certain that all the necessary assistance is given for them to remain in their own homes by way of home help, meals on wheels, and so on. This point has been made by many hon. Members today.
In this context it is important that retired persons should feel part of the community. In that way TV is their link. It does not much matter whether they are watching "Match of the Day", "News at Ten", or whatever. Television is their great link. Many pensioners regard it as part of their priority spending in much the same way as they regard their rent, electricity bills, and so on.
Perhaps the Minister can confirm that, much as we are concerned about licence evasion, we do not find much licence evasion among old-age pensioners, who certainly live up to their responsibilities in this way.
It seems, therefore, that, since the presence of a televsion set in a pensioner's home is an essential item of modern living, we must ask ourselves how we can help.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury, when Postmaster-General, started a concession. In fairness, that concession has been extended by the present administration. At that time it gave rise to a lot of thinking not only about the anomalies but about how best we could help old people to get similar assistance.
In 1971 the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr)—I am delighted that he should take part in the debate today—got an unopposed Second Reading for his Television Licensing (Elderly Persons) Bill and got it through Committee upstairs, albeit amended, but unhappily it was allowed to die because of the time factor.
Since then there have been dozens of Questions to the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications about this matter. Whether they have been for abolition or reductions, the general consensus of hon. Members is that something ought to be

done in this sphere. It may be that not all hon. Gentlemen agree with the Opposition motion, but, clearly, something must be done. In common, therefore, with most hon. Members, I have given that which I like to call my mind to the problem. I have thought about it in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) and other hon. Members have thought about it.
I thought that BBC finances might provide the answer. This proposition certainly has a lot of attraction. The collection of the licence fee is a difficult administrative exercise. As 95 per cent. or more of the population pay tax in this way, it may be time that we gave serious consideration to the problem. I do not think that this is the right time to discuss it, because, with deference to my right hon. Friend, I think that this is rather longer term than the motion suggests. The motion is of more immediate relevance to the problem of television in the home of the retirement pensioner.

Mr. Robort Cooke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mackenzie: No. The hon. Gentleman has not taken, or attempted to take, part in the debate. I have no intention of giving way. He has not tried to make a speech.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Cooke rose——

Mr. Mackenzie: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has not tried to take part in the debate.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Cooke rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows the rules.

Mr. Mackenzie: I do this because I have been asked to speak for only 15 minutes, as has the Minister. In fairness to hon. Members who have tried to take part in the debate and are not just sitting there shouting and sniggering, I shall continue to make my speech and take no notice of the hon. Gentleman.
I thought that we could make this concession through supplementary benefit. That proposition has much attraction. In an administrative sense, it might not be too difficult, but there is one problem. As the Secretary of State for Social Services knows, there are many people who, because they have another small


pension, might have an income which takes them just above the level of supplementary benefit. Therefore, it seems a little unfair to do it in that way.
I have considered every aspect. I have seen how such a concession operates in European countries, most of which operate a concession of one kind or another. But, no matter the system that I have examined, I find it difficult to draw a dividing line which will make it fair to everyone. In the end I come back to a system which is simple, easy to administer, and not a costly exercise. I come back, in fact, to the simple view which finds expression in the Opposition motion.
The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications has argued time and again about the anomalies of a simple scheme such as I have put forward. We must ask ourselves whether a licence concession such as this will outweigh the disadvantages of the anomalies and all the other difficulties.
I am a great believer in the good driving out evil. In this case I genuinely believe that the good which will come from giving a concession of some kind would be very much greater than the problems and anomalies likely to arise from it.
The Minister has suggested some of the anomalies and difficulties. Some months ago, under considerable pressure, he decided that he would have a review. He had his review. I do not know how many people were against and how many were in favour. But it is my guess that the majority were in favour of a concession of some kind. However, he came back to this House saying how sorry he was to disappoint a number of his hon. Friends. If he could have seen their faces behind him he would have realised how very disappointed they were. He said that he could not give this concession because there were other groups of people a great deal worse off than old-age pensioners. He asked about young folk who cannot afford a television at all. It may be that there are people who cannot afford a television. I know that there are many disabled people living in difficult circumstances. But I do not know of any group of people in our society who have received more sympathy on this

issue than the pensioners, and I believe that we are right to make a start on solving the problem.
The second point which the Minister makes continually, in common with some of his hon. Friends and one of my own, is that successive Governments have done nothing about the problem. So what? It may be that if this House had never changed its attitude over the years we should still have kids working down the pits. Fortunately, from time to time we change our attitudes, and to illustrate that I need only point to the Secretary of State for Social Services, who has changed his attitude on prices and incomes.
Between 1951 and 1964 there was a demand for pensions for the over-80s. Nothing happened. In 1964 the Conservatives went into opposition which wonderfully concentrated their minds. Then they became the Government once again and decided to introduce a Bill incorporating the proposal which had been made so frequently by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward).
The other argument sometimes used by the Minister and a number of his hon. Friends is that if we were to give a broadly based concession of this kind some of those who did not need it would get it. I understand that argument. However, I confess that I am much more concerned about the 999 retired steelworkers in my constituency who would get it than about trying to ensure that the Duke of Timbuktu or whoever it might be did not get it.
Another argument which is always put forward is that people will bring their relatives to live with them simply to get the £7. One of my hon. Friends said to me quite recently "If you think I am bringing my mother-in-law to live with me for the sake of seven quid, you are more naive than I thought." The truth is that the majority of ordinary young people want to bring their parents to live with them. They want to live up to their duties and responsibilities.
The really big difficulty, of course, concerns money. Who is to pay for it? That is the greatest obstacle. I have referred to a number of the problems, but we should not fool ourselves. The


biggest problem is to decide who will be responsible for the £25 million. If the Government once solved that problem all the anomalies and difficulties that we hear about would disappear from ministerial briefs like snow off a dyke.
The Secretary of State for Social Services has the reputation of being a man of great compassion. He is also a highly skilled debater. The hope of this House tonight is that the right hon. Gentleman's heart will get the better of his tongue. No doubt he will find flaws. Over the weekend I talked to a number of people in my constituency. I found very few dissentient voices. People know the record of this Government in broadcasting. They know that it is a handout to commercial radio. If rumours be true, there is to be a further handout in terms of a fourth television channel. People are saying that in a situation where there are all these handouts it is about time that a bob or two was given at the other end.
Frequently, when I say something with which he does not agree, my Chief Whip says to me, "Put your money where your mouth is". It is a favourite expression of his. There is a great deal in that argument. It is one that we ought to consider. Our old people will not be impressed by a lot of clever arguments. They see this as a straightforward and simple issue. Their message to this House is quite clear. They say "We do not wish to hear any more hand-on-the-heart speeches and the kind of sentimental slush served up to us at Christmas dinners". They say to us "Put your money where your mouth is and give the old folk free television licences".

7.45 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): May I say what an impressively vigorous debate this has been and how strongly argued and strongly felt, as well as crisp and brief, the speeches have been?
I thoroughly understand the generous instincts of hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish sincerely to enlarge the horizons of the elderly. There is no party monopoly of strength of view. Both Front Benches have had their critics. I have the difficult task of trying to present the reality of the position, which, as my right hon. Friend the Mem-

ber for Argyll (Mr. Noble) said, is a matter of priorities.
I suggest that hon. Members have been taking too narrow a view of the needs of the elderly. I sympathise very much with the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), who spoke of a new dimension. But there is one dimension which hon. Members have omitted totally and which the Government have to take into account. There are some needs of the elderly which no Government can provide. They need function, they need family and they need friends. We are not discussing the housing needs of the elderly, to which the Government can contribute largely.
Within the subject that we are discussing the Government have to provide help for the elderly in cash terms and in terms of services. Most hon. Members have agreed that if cash were sufficient there would be no case to argue for free television licences. Most hon. Members have said that if cash were enough the elderly should be left to choose their own preferences. They went on to say that cash was very tight for many of the elderly.
The fact is that 83 per cent. of households containing pensioners have television sets and buy television licences. I do not lean too heavily on that. But I draw from it the inference that in the majority of cases pensioners who want television can provide it for themselves.
Hon. Members must bear in mind that there is a vast range of services vital for the elderly which they cannot provide for themselves and which the Government and public expenditure must provide. When this Government came to office we found long neglected sectors affecting the elderly in our national life. We found a hospital service in which geriatric hospitals were almost stagnant backwaters staffed by devoted, over-worked staff. We found a number of other neglected sectors. I am not pointing the finger at any one Government, because over decades these services have been relatively neglected.
Of course I am not pretending that this Government have solved the problem, but they have provided for a record growth in expenditure on the National Health Service and on local authority


community services and injected an additional £250 million, on top of the annual increases, of extra money for specifically neglected services, of which services for the elderly in hospital and in the community were among the foremost.
Let me give the House—I am coming on to the question of television licences—some of the results of these priorities. Capital spending in the National Health Service on services for the elderly this year will be, in real terms, three times the capital spending on those services in the last year of the Labour Government. It is not enough—of course I am not saying that it is—but there are now more day hospitals, more upgraded wards, more staff—not enough, but more. Loan approvals for Part III accommodation are at a record level. There has been a record increase year by year in health visitors and chiropodists.
These are services that the elderly cannot provide for themselves. In the essential service of home helps, there was an increase during six Labour years of 12½ per cent. in the number of whole-time equivalent home helps. In our last two years there has been an increase, whole-time equivalent, in the number of home helps of no less than 16 per cent.—8 per cent. a year, compared with 2 per cent. Meals for the elderly are up 25 per cent. in the last two years. These are among the Government's priorities for the elderly.
As for cash, of course we all want the pension to increase faster in real buying power. Seen year by year—and we have now switched, after decades of begging from pensioners, to an annual uprating—the pension, in real buying power, creeps up. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) was right to point out that over the last 20 years the real buying power of the pension has doubled.
Had we been more prosperous and successful, we could, as Germany for instance has done, have done much better for the pensioner. We are none of us complacent about it, but it does increase in real buying power. It is a fact that during these years the Tory record has been substantially better in increasing the real buying power of the pension than that of the Labour Party.
I am not arguing that all pensioners can afford television licences. I am arguing that large numbers do afford them and that, because the pension increases now year by year, there is a shade more discretionary buying power in their hands than there was.
Why do not the other 17 per cent. of pensioner households who do not have have a television set have one? I do not disagree for a moment with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), the right hon. Member for Devon, North, the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) or the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) that, seen objectively, a television set gives them a possible expansion of vitality in life. But I would not altogether agree with the right hon. Member for Devon, North that a television set reduces isolation. It may reduce isolation when it is a novelty in a household, but it tends later, perhaps, to reinforce isolation.
I am not denying that some cannot afford it—that is agreed—that some have needs that leave them no discretionary spending power or that some have other preferences. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), who has been working for some years in the cause of more accessible television for the elderly and whose devotion to this cause we all respect, quoted Tunstall's book, "Old and Alone", which admittedly was written six or so years ago. After a survey of the wishes of the elderly, Tunstall found that watching television came sixth in their list of main pleasures.

Mr. John Mendelson: Then why do they all write to us?

Sir K. Joseph: Let me develop the argument.
Tunstall reported, on page 196, that those who did not have television seemed to be about equally divided for and against television. Obviously, many of those who do not have television and are in favour of it are prevented from having it by financial reasons, but there is a minority of pensioners included in the 17 per cent. that do not have a television set who, according to Tunstall, do not want one.
Why do they not want one? My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen), in a speech which my hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications told me was absolutely first-class—I am sorry that I missed it—gave one of the reasons and only one. After all, 8 per cent. of what, in the Amelia Harris survey, are termed the impaired section of the population are blind or partially-sighted. Some blind people like television, but a number of blind and partially-sighted elderly people do not find that a television set is something that they particularly want.
I am simply saying to my hon. Friends and the House as a whole that we cannot assume that the entire 17 per cent. of the elderly who do not have television are prevented from having it because they cannot afford it. Table 141 in the Amelia Harris survey shows that, with increasing age, larger and larger proportions of people who have television sets no longer use them.
So some would like and would use television if they had more money, but not all by any means of those who do not have television among the elderly want one. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster must accept that, even among the elderly living alone, all income groups are represented. There are those among them who could perfectly well afford the licence fee, as well as those who could not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) was absolutely right to say that the prime beneficiaries of this proposal would not necessarily be the 17 per cent. who do not have a television, because one has to have a television to pay the licence fee, but the 83 per cent. who have one at the moment and who pay a licence fee—some without strain and some with strain. There are a number of other excellent causes for which the House would like to vote extra resources. The disabled will want to know why the elderly should have a preference over the severely disabled. Why not telephones, if we are going for benefits in kind, a number of my hon. Friends have asked.
Government and local authorities have a number of needs, urgent and valid, to serve, and it is not absolutely clear to me or to the Government that this provision is the top priority. Where there

are very strong arguments for a totally housebound and isolated elderly person whose life would be much improved by television, the local authority has discretion to help. But I must not conceal from the House that the local authority has a mass of competing claims for money, which, although increasing, is admittedly never enough.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) asks: if local authorities have discretion, why not the Government? But the Government are far too remote to reach out and identify those hard cases whom local authorities can identify and help, if that makes sense in their priorities.

Mr. Marten: On this question of additional resources, I do not know whether my right hon. Friend was here at the time but the proposition that I put to the House required no additional resources, merely a small surcharge on the existing licence holders to reduce the licence fee for the old-age pensioners.

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend must recognise that that would mean that some much poorer people would be paying an extra licence fee to support some of the relatively better-off pensioners.
I cannot even offer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) the easy way out, of undertaking to ask the Supplementary Benefits Commission to give a priority to television. The Supplementary Benefits Commission, after all, has much greater imperatives in its range of needs, particularly, for instance, heating. The Government are always ready to listen to ideas. But I very much hope that before my hon. Friend decides on his vote tonight, he will have taken into account the arguments I have put forward.
I am not for a moment attempting to defend the anomaly. It causes great resentment to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) and the hon. Member for Goole (Dr Marshall), who are all, I am sure, quite right. But, as the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) said, there is not much point in removing one anomaly by creating a host of others.
I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer), my


hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury that to give free television licences to all pensioners because a relatively small minority who cannot afford them passionately want one would be a wrong use of public money at a time when many hon. Members are criticising the Government's public spending policies.
I must, therefore, advise my hon. Friends that, against the background of the extra money which the Government have put into services for the elderly and the move to annual upratings, this should not be our top priority.
Where would the money come from? The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) and the right hon. Member for Wednesbury made constructive speeches. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East criticised his right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) for omitting to tell us where the money would come from. But I shall tell the right hon. Gentlemen where Labour

spokesmen would say the money will come from: "It will come from the surtax concession." I have a list of the number of times that this surtax concession has been spent, and spent, and spent again.

Mr. Marten: The Opposition change their minds.

Sir K. Joseph: As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury says, it is absolutely proper and legitimate for an ex-Government to change their minds and their policies when they go into opposition. But it is surely unprincipled for an Opposition to make a change of policy after flatly rejecting free licences for television for pensioners when in office, and to change their policies without explaining why. The right hon. Gentlemen never explain why.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will reject the motion and vote for the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 249.

Division No. 61.]
AYES
[8.3 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cooper, A. E.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cordle, John
Goodhart, Philip


Amery, Rt Hn. Julian
Cormack, Patrick
Goodhew, Victor


Astor, John
Costain, A. P.
Gower, Raymond


Atkins, Humphrey
Crouch, David
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Awdry, Daniel
Crowder, F. P.
Gray, Hamish


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Green, Alan


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Grieve, Percy


Bell, Ronald
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.Jack
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Dean, Paul
Grylls, Michael


Benyon, W.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F
Gummer, J. Selwyn


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gurden, Harold


Biffen, John
Dixon, Piers
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Biggs-Davison, John
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Blaker, Peter
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Drayson, G. B.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Body, Richard
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Dykes, Hugh
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bowden, Andrew
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Haselhurst, Alan


Braine, Sir Bernard
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hastings, Stephen


Bray, Ronald
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Havers, Sir Michael


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Emery, Peter
Hawkins, Paul


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Eyre, Reginald
Hayhoe, Barney


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fell, Anthony
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Heseltine, Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hicks, Robert


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Higgins, Terence L.


Buck, Antony
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hiley, Joseph


Burden, F. A.
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fortescue, Tim
Holland, Philip


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Foster, Sir John
Holt, Miss Mary


Carlisle, Mark
Fowler, Norman
Hordern, Peter


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fox, Marcus
Hornby, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Chichester-Clark, R.
Fry, Peter
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Churchill, W. S.
Gardner, Edward
Howell, David (Guildford)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gibson-Watt, David
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Cockeram, Eric
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Iremonger, T. L.


Cooke, Robert
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)




Jamas, David
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Montgomery, Fergus
Shersby, Michael


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
More, Jasper
Simeons, Charles


Jessel, Toby
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Sinclair, Sir George


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Morrison, Charles
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Jopling, Michael
Mudd, David
Soref, Harold


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Murton, Oscar
Speed, Keith


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Neave, Airey
Spence, John


Kimball, Marcus
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Sproat, lain


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Stainton, Keith


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Normanton, Tom
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kinsey, J. R.
Nott, John
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Kitson, Timothy
Onslow, Cranley
Stokes, John


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Sutcliffe, John


Knox, David
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Tapsell, Peter


Lambton, Lord
Osborn, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lamont, Norman
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Lane, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Langtord-Holt, Sir John
Parkinson, Cecil
Tebbit, Norman


Le Marchant, Spencer
Peel, Sir John
Temple, John M.


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Percival, Ian
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Loveridge, John
Pink, R. Bonner
Tilney, John


Luce, R. N
Pounder, Rafton
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Trew, Peter


MacArthur, Ian
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tugendhat, Christopher


McCrindle, R. A.
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Turton, Rt. Hn Sir Robin


McLaren, Martin
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Vickers, Dame Joan


McMaster, Stanley
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Waddington, David


Macmlllan,Rt.Hn.Maurice(Farnham)
Raison, Timothy
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wall, Patrick


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Walters, Dennis


Maddan, Martin
Redmond, Robert
Ward, Dame Irene


Madel, David
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Warren, Kenneth


Maginnls, John E.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Mather, Carol
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Maude, Angus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Ridsdale, Julian
Wilkinson, John


Mawby, Ray
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Mills, Peter (Torringlon)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Woodnutt, Mark


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Worsley, Marcus


Miscampbell, Norman
Royle, Anthony
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Younger, Hn. George


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Molyneaux, James
Scott, Nicholas
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Money. Ernie
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Dunn, James A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Dunnett, Jack


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Eadie, Alex


Armstrong, Ernest
Cohen, Stanley
Edelman, Maurice


Atkinson, Norman
Concannon, J. D.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Conlan, Bernard
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Barnes, Michael
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ellis, Tom


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
English, Michael


Baxter, William
Crawshaw, Richard
Evans, Fred


Beaney, Alan
Cronin, John
Ewing, Harry


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Faulds, Andrew


Bidwell, Sydney
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Fisher, Mrs. Dorls(B'ham,Ladywood)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dalyell, Tam
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Booth, Albert
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Foot, Michael


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Davidson, Arthur
Ford, Ben


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckfand)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Forester, John


Bradley, Tom
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Garrett, W. E.


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Buchan, Norman
Deakins, Eric
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)


Buchanan. Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Gourlay, Harry


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dempsey, James
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dormand, J. D.
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Cant, R. B.
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire. E.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Carmichael, Neil
Driberg, Tom
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Carter. Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)
Duffy. A. E. P.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.







Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McGuire, Michael
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Hamilton, William (File, W.)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Roper, John


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mackie, John
Rose, Paul B.


Hardy, Peter
Maclennan, Robert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rowlands, Ted


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McNamara, J. Kevin
Sandelson, Neville


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfleld, E.)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Heffer, Eric S.
Marks, Kenneth
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Hilton, W. S.
Marquand, David
Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hampton,N.E.)


Hooson, Emlyn
Marsden, F.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Howell, Denis CSmall Heath)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Silverman, Julius


Huckfield, Leslie
Mayhew, Christopher
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Meacher, Michael
Small, William


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mendelson, John
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Millan, Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


Hunter, Adam
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Spriggs, Leslie


lrvlne,Rt.Hn.SlrArthur(Edge Hill)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Stallard, A. W.


Janner, Greville
Molloy, William
Steel, David


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechlord)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Strang, Gavin


John, Brynmor
Moyle, Roland
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Johnson, Carol (Lewlsham, S.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Oakes, Gordon
Swain, Thomas


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Ogden, Eric
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
O'Halloran, Michael
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
O'Malley, Brian
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oram, Bert
Tinn, James


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Orbach, Maurice
Tomney, Frank


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Orme, Stanley
Tope, Graham


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Oswald, Thomas
Torney, Tom


Judd, Frank
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Tuck, Raphael


Kaufman, Gerald
Padley, Walter
Varley, Eric G.


Kelley, Richard
Palmer, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin


Kerr, Russell
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Kinnock, Neil
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lambie, David
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wallace, George


Lamborn, Harry
Pavitt, Laurie
Watkins, David


Lamond, James
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Weitzman, David


Lawson, George
Pendry, Tom
Wellbeloved, James


Leadbitter, Ted
Perry, Ernest G.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Prentice, Rt. Hn Reg.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Prescott, John
Whitlock, William


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lewis. Ron (Carlisle)
Probert, Arthur
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Llpton, Marcus
Reed, D. (Sedgefleld)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lomas, Kenneth
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Loughlin, Charles
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Richard, Ivor
Woof, Robert


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McBride, Neil
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


McCartney, Hugh
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)
Mr. John Golding.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

The House divided:Ayes 279, Noes 249.

Division No. 62.]
AYES
[8.16 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bossom, Sir Clive
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bowden, Andrew
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Braine, Sir Bernard
Cockeram, Eric


Astor, John
Bray, Ronald
Cooke, Robert


Atkins, Humphrey
Br in Ion, Sir Tatton
Cooper, A. E.


Awdry, Daniel
Brockiebank-Fowler, Christopher
Cordle, John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cormack, Patrick


Balnlel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Costain, A. P.


Bell, Ronald
Bryan, Sir Paul
Crouch, David


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Crowder, F. P.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Buck, Antony
Davles, Rt. Hn. John (Knutstord)


Benyon, W.
Burden, F. A.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj.-Gen.Jack


Biffen, John
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Dean, Paul


Biggs-Davison, John
Carlisle, Mark
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Blaker, Peter
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Dlgby, Simon Wingfield


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Chapman, Sydney
Dixon, Piers


Body, Richard
Chichester-Clark, R.
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Churchill, W. S.
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec




Drayson, G. B.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Raison, Timothy


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Keilett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Dykes, Hugh
Kimball, Marcus
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
King, Evelyn (Dorsal, S.)
Redmond, Robert


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kinsey, J. R.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)
Kitson, Timothy
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Emery, Peter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Eyre, Reginald
Knox, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Fell, Anthony
Lambton, Lord
Ridsdale, Julian


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lamont, Norman
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lane, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fortescue, Tim
Lloyd, Ian (p'tsm'th, Langstone)
Royle, Anthony


Foster, Sir John
Longden, Sir Gilbert
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fowler, Norman
Loveridge, John
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Fox, Marcus
Luce, R. N.
Scott, Nicholas


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fry, Peter
MacArthur, Ian
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Gardner, Edward
McCrindle, R. A.
Shersby, Michael


Gibson-Watt, David
McLaren, Martin



Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Simeons, Charles


Gilmour, Sir John (File, E.)
McMaster, Stanley
Sinclair, Sir George


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Godber, Rt. Hn J. B.
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'minglon)


Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Soref, Harold


Goodhew, View
Maddan, Martin
Speed, Keith


Gower, Raymond
Madel, David
Spenca, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maginnis, John E.
Sproat, lain


Gray, Hamish
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stainton, Keith


Green, Alan
Mather, Carol
Stanbrook, Ivor


Grieve,Percy
Maude, Angus
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maudllng, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Grylis, Michael
Mawby, Ray
Stokes, John


Cummer, J. Selwyn
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sutcliffe, John


Gurden, Harold
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tapsell, Peter


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire,W)
Tebbit, Norman


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Temple, John M.


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Molyneaux, James
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Money, Ernie
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Haselhurst, Alan
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Thomas, Rt, Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Hastings, Stephen
Montgomery, Fergus
Tilney, John


Havers, Sir Michael
More, Jasper
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hawkins, Paul
Morgan, Geralnt (Denbigh)
Trew, Peter


Kayhoe, Barney
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Tugendhat, Christopher


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Morrison, Charles
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Heseltine, Michael
Mudd, David
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hicks, Robert
Murton, Oscar
Vickers, Dame Joan


Higgins, Terence L.
Neave, Alrey
Waddington, David


Hiley, Joseph
Nlcholls, Sir Harmar
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wall, Patrick


Holland, Philip
Normanton, Tom
Walters, Dennis


Holt, Miss Mary
Nott, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Hordern, Peter
Onslow, Cranley
Warren, Kenneth


Hornby, Richard
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hornsby-Smilh.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Orr. Capt. L. P. S.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Osborn, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Wiggin, Jerry


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wilkinson, John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Parkinson, Cecil
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Iremonger, T. L.
Peel, Sir John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Percival, Ian
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


James, David
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Woodnutt, Mark


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Worsley, Marcus


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pink, R. Bonner
Wylle, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Jessel, Toby
Pounder, Rafton
Younger Hn. George


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch



Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jopling, Michael
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Mr. Bernard Weatherill



Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis




Quennell, Miss J. M.





NOES


Abse, Leo
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Barnes, Michael
Bidwell, Sydney


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Armstrong, Ernest
Baxter, William
Boardman, H. (Leigh)


Atkinson, Norman
Beaney, Alan
Booth, Albert







Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bradley, Tom
Huckfield, Leslie
Padley, Walter


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hunter, Adam
Pavitt, Laurie


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Janner, Greville
Pendry, Tom


Cant, R. B.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Perry, Ernest G.


Carmichael, Neil
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Prescott, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Price, William (Rugby)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
John, Brynmor
Probert, Arthur


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Conlan, Bernard
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Richard, Ivor


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Roberts, Rt.Hn. Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Cronin, John
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Judd, Frank
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roper, John


Dalyell, Tam
Kelley, Richard
Rose, Paul B.


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Kerr, Russell
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davidson, Arthur
Kinnock, Neil
Rowlands, Ted


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lambie, David
Sandelson, Neville


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lamborn, Harry
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamond, James
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lawson, George
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Deakins, Eric
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silverman, Julius


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Skinner, Dennis


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Small, William


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lipton, Marcus
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Driberg, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Loughlin, Charles.
Spearing, Nigel


Dunn, James A.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Stallard, A. W.


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Steel, David


Eadie, Alex
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Edelman, Maurice
McBride, Neil
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McCartney, Hugh
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McElhone, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Ellis, Tom
McGuire, Michael
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Evans, Fred
Mackie, John
Swain, Thomas


Ewing, Harry
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Faulds, Andrew
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fisher, Mrs. Dorls(B'ham,Ladywood)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mallalleu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Tinn, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth
Tomney, Frank


Foot, Michael
Marquand, David
Tope, Graham


Ford, Ben
Marsden, F.
Torney, Tom


Forrester, John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Tuck, Raphael


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Varley, Eric G.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mayhew, Christopher
Wainwright, Edwin


Garrett, W. E.
Meacher, Michael
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Hellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mendelson, John
Wallace, George


Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Bruce
Watkins, David


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Weitzman, David


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Wellbeloved, James


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Molloy, William
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitlock, William


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Moyle, Roland
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hardy, Peter
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oakes, Gordon
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Ogden, Eric
Woof, Robert


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
O'Halloran, Michael



Heffer, Eric S.
O'Malley, Brian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hilton, W. S.
Oram, Bert
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Hooson, Emlyn
Orbach, Maurice
Mr. John Golding.



Orme, Stanley



Main Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, while recognising the importance of television to elderly people, reaffirms the policy pursued by successive Governments of increasing benefits in cash rather than in kind; and welcomes the substantial increases for retirement pensioners that have been made since the General Election and the decision to implement an annual review of pensions.

IMMIGRATION RULES

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to move
That the Statement of Immigration Rules for Control on Entry (H.C. 1972–73 No. 79), a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th January, be disapproved.
I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if at the same time we discuss the following motions:
That the Statement of Immigration Rules for Control after Entry (H.C., 1972–73 No. 80), a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th January, be disapproved.
That the Statement of Immigration Rules for Control on Entry (H.C., 1972–73 No. 81), a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th January, be disapproved.
That the Statement of Immigration Rules for Control after Entry (H.C., 1972–73 No. 82), a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th January, be disapproved.
The last time we debated the new immigration codes, on 22nd November last year, the Government suffered a resounding defeat. They proved too much not only for Opposition stomachs but for many on the Government side of the House. A substantial number of Conservative Members could not support the Government's proposals and they were rejected at the end of the day, even after the Foreign Secretary had been wheeled into action. The Government were defeated by a decisive vote of 35. I recall these events, as the starting point in examining the new orders that are before us today, to focus the attention of the House on the extent to which these new drafts have taken account of its wishes and to see whether they are, in their new form, more acceptable to us.
The Government have made some changes. I shall say more about that later. Their nature and inadequacy is best evidenced by the Government's own decision to divide the codes into two, and in their wish—as I understand it—to take them on separate occasions, no

doubt in the belief that the House would find it easier to swallow the pills one at a time rather than to down the lot in a single gulp. But to consider these orders separately would have been wrong, because we cannot begin to make sense of our immigration policy, which these codes outline, unless we debate them as a whole. When we do, it immediately becoms clear that the new orders reaffirm the pattern of preference in access to jobs and residence in Britain that appeared in the codes the House rejected last November. That pattern of preference established a hierarchy of privilege, dividing immigrants into three broad categories. I am aware that there have been more sophisticated minds at the Sunday Times and elsewhere which have described six and not three categories, and others have described 10 separate categories of would-be immigrants to this country. For my purposes, three will do.
First, there are the 200 million non-British people in Western Europe who stand at the apex of the new system. Second there is a limited group of Commonwealth citizens of British origin, now widened from the second to the third generation. Third, there is the great bulk of Commonwealth and other peoples who are to be rigidly controlled, both as to the numbers admitted and their conditions once they are here. I submit that that pattern of last November remains substantially unchanged.
In particular, I note that Commonwealth immigrants—leaving aside the question of their continued tight numerical control—after entry into the United Kingdom, and in spite of the many criticisms made of them by a number of speakers in last November's debate, are still to be subjected to discriminatory treatment, certainly as compared with those who enter from the EEC. It is very marked.
The Home Secretary has made some concessions, but I have to put it to him that whereas people from Western Europe will be able to come here to search for work without the need for any other permission to be granted to them, no Commonwealth immigrant can enter Britain without a work permit attaching him to a particular job and employer. Again, whereas the EEC worker can


bring in his children under the age of 21, his parents and other dependants, the new Commonwealth immigrant is much more restricted in this respect. Since we are dealing with what, under our present tight controls over numbers, can amount to only a few new immigrants a year, these restrictions on their access to work and on their dependants—which are clearly discriminatory when viewed in the new context, particularly, of the EEC regulations—cannot be justified.
The next thing that we note since last November, although it is not mentioned in the codes, is the volte face of the Home Secretary on the question of British passport holders in East Africa and elsewhere. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will conclude the debate from this side of the House, when she will say more about this.
I do not begin to understand how the Home Secretary can argue, with great eloquence, one policy in October 1972 and an entirely different one in January 1973. In October he told his own conference that he
had made it absolutely categorically clear that if those passport holders of ours were expelled and so became refugees with no other country to go to, we would have an obligation to take them in in their time of need and we would honour that obligation.
I think that was a very difficult decision. It was a brave decision and it was the right decision, although I wish the Government could have mobilised more pressure against the odious Amin to try to deter him at least from the pursuit of these very evil policies.
But if the right hon. Gentleman was right then, and if it was a matter of honour and compassion, then, as the Prime Minister himself said in a speech on 1st December, when he described what would
have been the sight presented to us on our television screens night after night this Christmas"—
of refugees held in camps in Uganda—
I cannot believe that anyone in this country would have regarded such an outcome as acceptable.
All I can say is that if that was right then, and those views were held, I do not see how it can now be said—indeed,

whether it is even sensible to say, as tit,: right hon. Gentleman did on 25th January, that
The Government consider that to have a similar burden thrust on us again would impose unacceptable strains and stresses on our society …."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January 1973; Vol. 849, c. 655.]
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what has moved him to make those radical changes of stance when he replies to the debate.
The last change which I note from the codes before us last November is in the proposals affecting citizens from New Zealand, Australia and Canada. We have considerable objection to the grandparent formula which the Government have used, but we recognise the need for a special link with citizens of those three countries. There are many reasons for that, and several were advanced by hon. Members on both sides in our debate on 22nd November.
For myself, the most important reason is that whereas it is reasonable to expect the descendants of British emigrants to a foreign country to become part of that country and to recognise the fading out of their British connection, it is not reasonable to expect that of those British people who have over so many years gone to Australia, Canada and New Zealand. It is not reasonable to expect it, because they have gone not to foreign countries but to countries which were, and still are, self-proclaimedly and overwhelmingly British—British in their population, British in their language, their institutions, their customs, their loyalties, and even in the acceptance of our Monarch as their Sovereign. This is a connection which no other European country has with any other country in the world. It is a unique connection which arises out of the unique character of our own history.
The flow of people from these islands to New Zealand, Australia and Canada has not stopped. Two million have gone since the end of the war, and, clearly, we would wish it to continue. But, apart from that, it seems to me right to acknowledge that a special relationship exists. But it is a pity that a better and more acceptable formula than the one chosen by the Government could not have been found—more acceptable not only to opinion here and elsewhere in the


Commonwealth but to New Zealand, Australia and Canada.
I have pointed to certain changes which have taken place—some good and some bad—in these codes, but the pattern of preference remains essentially as it was last November, and I turn now to the most important feature of the pattern, namely, the preference granted to nationals of the Common Market.
It is the most important feature for several reasons. First, it gives the nationals of the EEC countries a special position and a larger access than is afforded to the peoples of any other country. They leap in status from the undifferentiated category of alien to a new privileged category almost indistinguishable from that of the British people themselves. Whatever one may think of that, the magnitude of the change should not be in dispute.
Second, in numerical terms it involves a remarkable and unprecedented opening of the national gate. Nearly 200 million people, at a stroke, have been granted the right to enter, to seek work and to reside at will anywhere in this island.
Third, and most important of all, we have abandoned the right to close the door should our circumstances at some stage demand it. We have abandoned it to agencies outside this country and outside the jurisdiction of the British Government and Parliament. Therefore, when I say that this is by far the most important aspect of the code I am guilty of no exaggeration.
Of the 72 pages of White Paper prose now devoted to the immigration rules, just over two are devoted to this immense change, and these pages are bedded deep in the body of the rules.
The second point is that the January codes are, in dealing with the European Economic Community, identical to those rejected in November. The Government, in spite of their resounding defeat, have made no change at all in the central matters of the codes in their treatment of the Community. We all know why.
The Government have no alternative but to disregard this House and the wishes of the elected Members in it. They cannot change the codes in respect of the Community because they are no longer masters in their own house. They

have subjected themselves to a superior jurisdiction—a jurisdiction of Community law and Community courts. The reality of what is involved in our new relationship in Europe is not to be found in the two compressed pages of the text in these codes but in the text of the Treaty of Rome and, in much greater detail, in the 48 articles of the Euro-Law 1612 of 1968 and in the further 14 articles of the Community directive of that same date.
Ministers have not been frank with the House or with the nation about what is involved. I do not think that they have even been frank with themselves; otherwise I do not understand how the Home Secretary failed to recognise, last November, that he had opened the door to a quite unparalled extent but instead solemnly assured the House, at the moment he was doing it, that he had carried out resolutely the Government's intention of closing the door more firmly than ever. When challenged on them, he falls back on well-worn arguments. He says that no one in Europe would want to come here. I shall not go into that now, except to say that anyone who bases his view on short-term trends has no right to be taken seriously when we are considering changes which are supposed to be of a permanent character—changes in the immigration law which, unless that law is changed again, will be in operation many decades ahead.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman says that if people from Europe did wish to come he would not hesitate to use what he calls the "safeguards" in the Community Treaties. In November he said:
If the free movement of labour were to result in, to use the Community's term, disturbance of our labour markets in this country, this Government would make full use of all these provisions"—
the safeguards—
were the need to arise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November 1972; Vol. 846, c. 1356.]
He did not say what those provisions are. I will tell the House. They are that he can request the Commission to suspend the free movement articles, but
The Commission shall decide on the suspension as such and on the duration thereof …".
If he does not like that, he can try to get the Council, either acting unanimously or by a majority vote, to annul or amend the Commission's decision. It is all there in


the secondary legislation of the Community.
The fact of the matter is that the safeguards machinery will no longer be in British control. I am sure that the Commission will behave almost certainly in a reasonable and enlightened way. But if the right hon. Gentleman made a request to shut the door it would respond only if the continuing influx of labour were taking place into Britain against a background of our own high unemployment. It would not suspend free movement for social and other reasons, and certainly not because it took the view that the right hon. Gentleman likes to advance when restricting other immigrant workers—that we are an over-populated island.
The right hon. Gentleman has not been entirely frank with himself or with the House, and in this context I must refer again to what I conceive to be highly misleading language in the text of the immigration codes. Paragraph 51 says:
When an EEC national is given leave to enter, no condition is to be imposed …
on his entry into the United Kingdom. The use of the words "given leave to enter" clearly implies that we have the right or the power to withhold such leave. But surely that is not the case. Indeed, paragraph 52 partly corrects that statement when it tells us that anyone from the EEC
… who wishes to enter the United Kingdom in order to take or seek employment … is to be admitted without a work permit or other prior consent.
Perhaps the Home Secretary will explain how by paragraph 52 an EEC worker is to enter without prior consent yet by paragraph 51 he has to be given leave to enter.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I am listening with great interest to what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Can he explain how these rules have altered since he was a member of the Cabinet which sought to have us join the Common Market?

Mr. Shore: I will answer the hon. Gentleman at once. We are now discussing the actual text of regulations made in 1968, and as the hon. Gentleman will, I think, understand—and I will return to this question a little later, as

it is important—there was in that year a very important change in the whole law affecting the free movement of labour.
I have asked the Home Secretary to explain this matter. If he has any doubt who is to control I should like him to read the words of the Community legislation itself and, in particular, Article 3 of the directive of 15th October 1968 which says:
Member States shall allow the persons referred to in Article 1"—
who are those nationals of the Common Market—
to enter their territory merely on production of a valid identity card or passport
The same article states that
No entry visa or equivalent document may be demanded
and to remove any possible misunderstanding the directive helpfully provides, in an annex, an eight-line document which is to be given to would-be immigrants authorising entry to the United Kingdom or any other member country.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman makes much of the alleged requirement of EEC nationals to report to the police but again—and I do not know whether he has checked this item—I find it difficult to believe that that requirement is consistent with Community law or would stand up to challenge in the European Court.
That brings me to what was said by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), which is a related legal point of some importance—the conflict that exists, as I see it, between the Euro-regulation passed in 1968, which now underpins our new immigration code, and the actual provision of the Treaty of Rome itself.
The Home Secretary will recall that during the debate on 22nd November last his hon. Friends the Members for Peters-field (Miss Quennell) and Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) drew attention to this very point and quoted Article 48(3)(a) of the Rome Treaty which, his hon. Friends will recall, says that freedom of movement
… shall entail the right to accept offers of employment actually made.
Further, Article 48(3)(b) says that people shall have the right
… to move within the territory of the Member States for this purpose";


That is to say, to take offers of jobs actually made. That is clearly not the same thing as the right to go in search of work in Britain, which is embodied both in the 1968 regulation and directive and in the codes now before us.
There is not much doubt that the intention and language of the treaties have been stretched well beyond the original intent, not of course, by the British Government alone but by the Governments of the Six. To answer the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe, we are dealing with matters and laws agreed after the application made by my right hon. Friend in 1967.
Having established some at least of the facts, let me now explain to the House how we regard these proposals. We are perfectly prepared to see a mutually beneficial, controlled movement of people between our country and Europe and vice versa. While we are fully aware of the benefit we have gained from immigrant groups from Europe, we are not prepared simply to abandon control over entry to the United Kingdom from Western Europe. We do not believe that the Government are right to do that, or that they have the right to do it, certainly not without first obtaining the consent of the British people to all that is entailed in membership of the EEC. It is too serious a matter, too great an alienation of the power of a British Government, for them so lightly to embark on it without first having obtained the consent of the British people.
We do not accept the open door with Europe for another reason. Complete free movement of labour is acceptable only in a genuine political union. It is part of a federal purpose. It is right and natural that the peoples of the separate States of the United States of America should move freely within the United States, because they are one State and one people. But while we have allies and friends in Western Europe, with whom I hope our relations will grow closer in the future than they have been in the past, we delude ourselves if we believe that we are one people with them now.
Nor is it necessary for the effective functioning of the Common Market for such provisions to be made. Indeed, in certain circumstances the provisions could be dangerous. It is no accident that the

Common Market has a fully developed system for enabling workers to move around Europe in search of work while it lacks even the beginnings of a European regional policy. The whole emphasis is wrong. There is far too much stress on the worker moving to where the work is and far too little on bringing work to where the worker resides.
As the Home Secretary well knows, there is a growing crisis in Europe caused by the uninhibited free movement of labour into and within it. Admittedly, the principal cause now is not the movement of people between the six founder States but the attraction into the Community of millions of people from lands that border the Mediterranean, including the two associated member States—Turkey and Greece—which before many years have passed will become full members of the EEC.
We cannot accept a system which, both as to the numbers who have the right to come and the conditions which they enjoy, clearly places people from the EEC countries in a position of marked advantage over the peoples of the old and new Commonwealth with whom we still have, in the view of many—in the view of most on the Opposition side—stronger ties.
For all those reasons, I urge the House to reject the rules.

8.53 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr): As we would have expected, the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) has devoted a major part of his speech to the European Economic Community. If I may say so, I think that in some respects he went wider in what he said about it than is perhaps justified by the rules we are discussing, though they do bear on it.
When the right hon. Gentleman spoke about the special privileges attaching to citizens of the Community countries he overlooked one or two points. For example, when he compared them with Commonwealth citizens he overlooked that no EEC citizen will enjoy the same civic privileges as Commonwealth citizens have always enjoyed and will still enjoy under the rules and the 1971 Act. These civic privileges—participating in our democratic system as voters


and candidates; the right to join our public services, both armed and civil—are no mean privileges. They are still reserved to Commonwealth citizens and are not given to any aliens, even our new friends and partners in the European Community. That is one very big difference.
The right hon. Gentleman said with some truth that membership of the European Community gives new privileges to large numbers of people living in Europe which they did not have before. That is undeniable. To that extent, the comparative benefits of Commonwealth citizenship qua these aliens are reduced. Therefore, I suppose that to that extent it can be argued that EEC membership has, within that narrow context, discriminated against the Commonwealth.
What would the right hon. Gentleman and his Government have done? After all, the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Cabinet when the Labour Government were committed in principle to entry into Europe. Were they intending to relax Commonwealth immigration control—to confer more privileges on and have less control over Commonwealth citizens entering? If so, I do not recollect their saying so. At the very time when the Labour Government were committing Britain in principle—I fully agreed with it—to seeking membership of the European Community, far from relaxing control on Commonwealth citizens they were, in fact, tightening it.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke a number of times about credibility. He cannot stand at that Dispatch Box with any credibility and make the case he sought to make, because he knows, as we all know, that one of the basic principles of the Community, not negotiable, was that its members should form together a free travel and a free work area. This was and always has been a basic principle. The right hon. Gentleman knew it when he was a member of the Cabinet.

Mr. Shore: Has the right hon. Gentleman followed what I said? I dealt with this point specifically. I say seriously and specifically that when in 1967 my right hon. Friends embarked upon this exercise of negotiation this law did not even exist. It was a much more specific control—[Interruption.]—we did not

negotiate in 1970; no negotiation took place. No hon. Member has any right to infer what the decisions of a Labour Government would have been.

Mr. Carr: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is forgetting one important point. The right to come to jobs offered laid down in Article 48(3) of the Treaty of Rome was modified in 1968, by a decision of the Council of Ministers, to having the right to come and seek work. So for two years when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Labour Cabinet his Government went on committing themselves in principle to membership of the Common Market, knowing that this right of free work area had been extended, as it was by the 1968 decision. That happened in 1968, not in 1970 or at any subsequent date.
The right hon. Gentleman contrasted paragraph 51 of HC No. 81—Statement of Immigration Rules for Control on Entry—which speaks about
When an EEC national is given leave to enter"—
with paragraph 52, which states:
An EEC national who wishes to enter the United Kingdom in order to take or seek employment … is to be admitted without a work permit …".
There is no contradiction between those two. An EEC national cannot enter this country without leave. He must have a passport or a visa, and we have a right to refuse entry on a number of grounds, just as we have a right to refuse entry to those coming from other countries. We can refuse entry on medical grounds, on a criminal record, on grounds of personal undesirability and on conducive grounds. On all those grounds entry of an EEC citizen can be refused, just as it can be refused to a citizen of any other alien or Commonwealth country. When they have got that basic permission to come and work here, they do not require work permits. They can seek work and do not have to have it before they come. There is nothing contradictory about those two paragraphs.
The right hon. Gentleman said that in his view the provision that EEC nationals had to report to the police would be inconsistent with Community law. I am advised that that is not so. It is pointed out to me that all the existing Community countries—not just the new ones—have similar provisions in operation and


have had for a long time. Unlike the British practice, their practice has been to exercise immigration control by means of an internal control and not a control on entry at their ports. We are asking here only for what has been fairly common practice in one form or another in all the old Community countries.
If there are any other particular points which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, I am sure that my hon. Friend will deal with them in winding-up the debate. I wish to come to one or two general points made by the right hon. Gentleman before I explain briefly the nature of the changes that we have introduced.
I wish particularly to take up what the right hon. Gentleman said about United Kingdom passport holders. Essentially, he said that if it was right for the Government collectively and for me personally to say what we did last October, it is wrong for me personally and for the Government collectively to be saying what we are saying now. I suppose that this will remain a matter of opinion, but I simply do not accept that.
I have no doubt that we had an obligation to take those citizens from Uganda when they were expelled. I said publicly, and I repeat, that I would not have remained a member of a Government that did not accept that obligation. But, equally, we have a duty to this country, not least to those who came to this country in the first place as immigrants. Having accepted that burden, as we did, I do not believe that it would be right for any British Government again to accept a similar burden to that which we accepted last summer. I do not regard it as dishonourable, as an act of Government policy, at a time when we have just accepted that burden and where none of our citizens anywhere in the world is under a similar threat, to make the statement that we could not again accept a mass exodus of that kind. The vital qualification is that I would not say what I have just said without at the same time accepting absolutely an ultimate responsibility to take in our passport holders in a controlled and orderly manner under the voucher system. For this country to give that notice at a time when none of our people is under that threat is right in our interests and in theirs and is in no way dishonourable.

Mr. David Steel: What would be the Government's policy in the unfortunate and unlikely event of another expulsion?

Mr. Carr: I think that we have made our position absolutely clear. I do not believe that I assist the cause of anybody, least of all the people of this country or the people abroad about whom we are thinking, by indulging in hypothetical speculation. We have said that we have given notice to the countries where this might happen—where, thank goodness, there is no sign of it happening—at this time of relaxation, that if they were to think of moving on those lines they could not assume that there was the easy option that perhaps President Amin was able to assume. I believe it is right in the interests of those people there, and right in the interests of all people in this country, not least our own immigrant population.
We have also given notice to the whole international community that if such a mass exodus were to be brought about again we would require substantial help from the international community. Although we will honour our responsibility, we must have full, ample time to do so, because the number of new people we can accept into this country year by year is strictly limited, not least in the interest of maintaining decent community relations. If hon. Members opposite disagree with that, it is perfectly proper for them to do so, but let them not be mealy-mouthed about it: let them say quite clearly they do disagree with it.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Does the right hon. Gentleman, then, accept the proposition which was advanced by the Attorney-General in these terms:
There is a clear obligation in international law that when citizens of the United Kingdom are being expelled we should take them into this country, unless other countries are prepared to accept them"?
What happens if there is simply not the time he expects there to be?

Mr. Carr: That is exactly what I am saying. There was certainly no time last July or August, but by making a statement of policy now we ensure there is time, and we believe it will be influential in greatly reducing the risks of such another tragedy being thrust upon the whole population. I am quite sure that


when that pledge was given, to accept people being expelled, the pledge given by the Labour Government of the day and endorsed by the Conservative Opposition of the day, we were thinking in terms of individual people and not whole populations.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York) rose——

Mr. Carr: The hon. Member will be able to speak for himself. If he says it is not so, I fully accept that, but, whatever may be said about arguments in the past, in view of our situation in this country at the moment I am sure that what I have said is in the interests of the long-established British stock in this country and even more in the interests of the immigrant population in this country, because I do not believe we could maintain the sort of decent community relations which are of overriding importance to our society, and particularly our urban society, if such a thing were to happen again, and we would be failing in our duty if we did not say so.
I must pass on, because vitally important though that is, and, no doubt, more important than these rules, it is, nevertheless, these rules we are here to discuss tonight.
First of all as to the form. The House will see, what the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, that we have published the rules in two sets, one for Commonwealth citizens and the second for EEC and other aliens. The reason for splitting them is threefold. Providing them in these two sets emphasises the importance placed on the Commonwealth connection. Incidentally, it also reverts to previous practice. It had been our practice hitherto to have two sets of rules. So we are reverting to previous practice. It also helps to destroy the myth which was growing up that we were wishing to treat Commonwealth citizens as aliens. Thirdly, separating them in the way we have done makes it easier to alter the Commonwealth rules, if we wish to do so, without having to disturb the whole lot.
This is important, because one of the points made in the last debate in November was the need for consultation with the Commonwealth to see whether we should seek to find a new basis for any ex-

changes of population. Indeed, I, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in more specific terms in winding up the debate, gave an undertaking on that account.
I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Stepney, while rejecting a grand-parental connection as a qualification, say he believed it was right to have some special relationship recognised with those countries in the Commonwealth which are peculiarly British. I do not admit that it is in any way racial or prejudicial to admit openly what is a clear fact. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that. I was hoping that he would have gone on to say what sort of connection this might have been, because that is what we all ponder and, so far, ponder without much flash of enlightenment. This is what we promised to explore.
Since those pledges were given my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has had discussions both in this country and in Canada with the Canadian Prime Minister.
Concerning Australia and New Zealand, officials from the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office went to Australia and New Zealand in the second half of January to have talks at official level in preparation for the visit at the beginning of February of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who discussed these matters with the Prime Ministers of New Zealand and Australia and, of course, other Ministers particularly concerned in their Governments. I should also make clear that there have been diplomatic contacts on this subject with other Commonwealth countries.
The upshot is that the subject—when I talk about the subject, I include discussion of reciprocity which, although it can have different meanings, was one sort of special recognition which hon. Members were suggesting in the last debate—has only just been opened up, and we have not by a long way carried these explorations to finality. I cannot, therefore, give any firm, let alone final, report. However, it is fair to point out that each of the three countries—Canada, Australia and New Zealand—see considerable difficulty in coming to bilateral or even multilateral reciprocal arrangements on this subject.


It would be misleading the House to pretend that there is no difficulty or to let it think that if there is difficulty it is particularly on the United Kingdom's side. All three countries have considerable difficulty in this matter and we shall be pursuing it with them further.
One reason for presenting the rules in this way is that if discussions with Commonwealth countries lead to a desire or an agreement to change them it is more easily done with them in this form than all together in one set of rules.
I turn now to the changes in the rules to which I particularly want to draw attention. In considering what changes I could make, following the debate and the views expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House in November, I had to be governed by two guiding principles.
First, I had to recognise—I am sure that the House will accept this—that since the 1971 Act was on the Statute Book I could work only within its provisions. Some of the matters raised by hon. Members—for example, where could the right of appeal be exercised?—are laid down in the Act and were therefore not open to me to alter by any change in the rules.
I will explain the second principle which has guided me. I felt that, subject to one overriding proviso, I ought to seek to make these rules as flexible and, above all, as humane as possible. The overriding proviso is that since this is a crowded island since, as far as we can see at the moment and for the prospective future, we have an ample labour force, entry for permanent settlement in this country must be small in number and strictly controlled. Therefore, however much we would wish otherwise, on individual humane and personal grounds, we must have stiff barriers against areas and sections of people from which great pressure for permanent settlement comes as a matter of fact. Equally, I saw no need to maintain stiff barriers against areas from which no pressure—or no significant pressure—comes or is to be expected. That was the overriding thought in my mind as I approached the changes that I should make.
I should like to draw attention to a few of the changes. First, there is family deportation. I hope that the House will agree that the rules dealing with this

matter—No. 45 in House of Commons paper 80 and No. 52 in House of Commons paper 82—provide considerably greater flexibility and, in particular, list various factors which appeal to tribunals and the Home Secretary must take into account when considering whether to require wives and dependants to leave when the husband is to be deported. This was a matter to which the Opposition and a number of my hon. Friends drew attention. I hope that the new rules will give greater flexibility and express more clearly the desire that wives and children should not be deported with husbands unreasonably or harshly.
As regards parents, I said earlier that the terms of the Act limit my freedom of manoeuvre pretty tightly. But it will be seen that any possible difference in the treatment of aliens compared with Commonwealth citizens has been removed. It has been removed by an equality of misery rather than an equality of preference. But the House felt that there should be absolute equality in the matter, and that is now achieved.
In terms of dependants, it has not been possible to maintain the need for strict control over permanent settlement and to go as far as many hon. Members wish. In the new rules we have been able to make some changes on dependants which I believe will be welcomed. The rules now make it clear that grandparents of Commonwealth citizens are to be treated as favourably as parents and automatically allowed in if they are over 65. The new rules also make it clear that parents under 65 will be admitted in the same compassionate circumstances as other relatives. That was a matter raised by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon). It was never our intention that parents should be treated less compassionately than other relatives. The rules now make clear our intention on that.
As regards visitors, the changes that we are making—certainly in terms of the Commonwealth and probably wider—are of great importance. The more that I thought about the complaints that we had, the more I came to realise that a large proportion of them concerned people from the Commonwealth coming here to visit rather than people coming here to stay permanently. I hope that the changes which have been made in the


rules will be helpful. We now make it specific that six months shall be the normal minimum period and that longer periods will be freely available to those visitors who ask for them. The right to do that had existed before but now, having stated it explicity in the rules, immigration officers on receiving people know explicitly that that is the entitlement of those visitors and that that is how immigration officers are expected to act. This is much clearer and alters the balance, the emphasis and the presentation both to immigration officers and to incoming visitors in a way which is important and which I believe will be helpful. If we can tie that up with improved procedures at our ports of entry, visitors coming here should lose any feeling of somehow being unwelcome or that we are trying to stop them coming in.
Next we have managed to make substantial improvements in the working holidaymaker scheme for Commonwealth citizens. There are two main changes. The first again concerns the initial period. The rules now state explicitly that 12 months shall be the normal minimum visiting period, and they go on to say that the maximum period shall be extended from three years to five years and that the right to go on from 12 months to five years shall be made clear to working holidaymakers as they come in. This change of emphasis is important. It brings out the welcome that we wish to give to those young working holidaymakers in clearer way if for no other reason than that there is now a separate rule whereas before it was necessary to thumb through the rules to see whether any, and if so what, reference was made to them. I hope that we have both improved and made more obvious the welcome that we give to these people.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I appreciate the aim of my right hon. Friend in doing this, but it is, of course, clear that the five-year working holidays apply not only to Australian and New Zealand young people coming here but to other people from the Commonwealth as well. There is no sign of any abuse at the moment, but would he keep this under review and perhaps think in terms of some restrictions on the numbers of permits granted in this way?

Mr. Can: Of course, the working holidaymaker opportunity is available for all Commonwealth citizens. Historically, it is a right which so far has been taken advantage of in the majority of cases—not entirely—only by young people from New Zealand, Australia and Canada. There have been a number from other countries, but the essence of this is that it is a temporary visit.
I assure the House that I shall always be watching this carefully, because if it ever became a backdoor way of achieving permanent settlement, contrary to our policy of control, it is a privilege which we should, regretfully, have to restrict. However, I am glad to say that there is no sign of this being abused at the moment, and I am sure that all hon. Members would wish the privilege to be maintained just so long as there is no sign of abuse. Of course, I assure the House that we shall keep our eyes open.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Could my right hon. Friend say whether the period of up to five years under this rule would count as residence for the purposes of acceptance as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies?

Mr. Carr: If I have mistaken my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will deal with this when he winds up. My right hon. Friend may have in mind a point which I have not taken, just quickly listening to his intervention.
The reason why I have felt able to extend the three years to five years is this. Prior to the coming into operation of the 1971 Act, once any Commonwealth citizen had been here for five years he automatically achieved registration in this country. Now under the 1971 Act, although he has the right to apply, the Home Secretary has the right to refuse. Therefore, whereas before it was not safe, to put it in crude language, to let people stay to the point at which no one could remove them, it is now right to allow them to stay up to five years because they do not have this right automatically. If my right hon. Friend had more than that in mind, perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to deal with it.

Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend has indeed taken my point, but I think that he will appreciate that a difficulty may well arise in that a person not admitted for permanent residence but present only as a visitor is very difficult to distinguish and discriminate against for the purposes of registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

Mr. Carr: My hon. Friend, who deals with these matters from day to day, tells me reassuringly that he thinks that there is no difficulty about this and that he will explain to my right hon. Friend in more detail when he winds up. We will deal with the point.
The last change to which I want to draw attention is the exemption from work permits for anyone with a grandparent born in this country. When we introduced this, the Government did so because we thought it right to recognise that anyone with close and recent family connection should be free to come and work and settle here if he so chose. As the House will know, it was our original intention to include this in the Act itself but the House in its wisdom decided against us.
What I want to make quite clear now is that, although the number potentially able to come in under this relaxation is very large—probably a further 8 million people—we see no sign at all of the actual numbers doing so being of a significant size. They have not done so hitherto, and we do not believe that they will do so in future.
However, as I said in my statement on 25th January, this is something which we shall watch carefully. I make no bones about it—since we simply cannot have large-scale permanent settlement in this country from any source—that if there were a sudden change in this position we should have to review the rule. Because it is now in a rule and not in the Act, it can be easily reviewed and easily changed if circumstances were, in the opinion of the Government and Parliament, to demand it.

Sir Robin Turton: ; My right hon. Friend told us earlier the reaction of Canada, Australia and New Zealand to any suggestion of reciprocity. Will he now tell us what their reactions were to this grand-parental rule?

Mr. Carr: It is no secret that when we first thought of this idea some two or three years ago it was not unanimously and warmly welcomed by those countries, and I do not believe that it is altogether welcomed today. As I think I have admitted, I am not claiming that it is a perfect recognition of the special connection between our countries. Indeed, as I have said, this is one of the troubles.
I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that it was right to have a special connection and to recognise it. It is much more difficult to say what that special connection should be and how it should be recognised. So I shall certainly not claim to my right hon. Friend that all are happy about it, because they are not. But, on the other hand, a lot of people are happy about it, and this is important, both in this country and in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. At least the people who are unhappy about it are fewer in number than they were previously. So at least I can tell my right hon. Friend that I have been decreasing unhappiness in the world, and I cannot often do that.
The new rules now, as we see it, complete an overall policy for future immigration into this country. As we see it, they are based on three principles. The first principle is the recognition that Britain is a crowded island with a labour force which, for the moment at least, appears ample for her needs, and, therefore, that there must be restriction of all permanent immigration to what I described in my statement on 25th January as the "inescapable minimum", and we must have the establishment of effective controls to achieve this.
The second principle is to recognise, within this overall need, a continuing responsibility to those in various parts of the world who remain entitled to United Kingdom citizenship. Hence the decision to reserve for these people as large a proportion as possible of the limited numbers we are able to admit year by year, and to do so in a controlled and orderly way.
The third principle is the recognition that it is both right and natural to give easy access to Britain to all those with close and recent family ties with this country, provided that they create no significant pressure for permanent settlement.
Those three principles hang together to create an immigration policy which, within our overall need to limit severely permanent settlement in this country, is reasonably humane and reasonably and responsibly treats individuals, but also recognises our obligations to other countries.

Mr. Shore: The right hon. Gentleman has stated his guiding principles, but will he now, or at some stage during his speech, tell us how he reconciles them with the new and open-ended commitment into which he has entered in relation to the European Economic Community?

Mr. Carr: The House will be delighted to know, even if the right hon. Gentleman will not, that I thought that I had concluded my speech. The right hon. Gentleman is obsessed with this. We have never denied—as far as I know, when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Labour Cabinet he never denied it—that the decision to apply for membership of the European Community carried with it the fact that we would become a member of a very much larger free travel and work area. That was one of the basic principles of the Community. The right hon. Gentleman supported it, and he had better not forget it.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: The Home Secretary seems to have adopted what is fashionably known as a low profile approach in presenting these changed rules to the House. It is a long time since we heard a Minister justify his proposals by saying that he hoped that at the end of the day fewer people would be unhappy about them than before. It is a low level of ambition, but I suppose it is a change of policy.
Any of us who at any time have voted for the principle of joining the Common Market must have known that we were supporting the principle of the Common Market regulations in respect of the free movement of labour. That has never been an issue between my colleagues and myself and the Government in discussing these rules, but it is fair to say that the biggest single change that the Home Secretary has made in the rules since they were

last discussed in the autumn is the change in the grandparent rule. The effect of this is to give a virtually automatic right of free entry and a right of abode in this country to a further 8 million people. It is important that we should be aware of the effect of this change, because the Conservative Party likes to go round the country saying that it is in favour of stricter control of immigration.
It was interesting that the Home Secretary went on to say that if he discovered that a substantial number of that 8 million were taking advantage of this change in the rules they could be changed back again so that those people could not then benefit from them. This is an Alice-in-Wonderland situation. It means that a change has been made to meet the wishes of part of the House but that if people in appreciable numbers seek to make use of it we shall revert to the original situation. That is a curious way of proceeding.
As a member of the Committee that considered the 1971 Bill, I have another reservation about this change. The Government appear to be seeking by executive action to reverse a legislative decision of the House. The Home Secretary cannot ride off on this one. An amendment was passed by the majority of the Committee which the Government were entitled to reverse on Report if they had wished to do so, but the Government decided not to try to reverse it, nor did anybody else. Therefore, the Bill became law without the grandparent clause. It is no good saying that these people are allowed to come here only if they get entry clearance. I repeat that what the Government are doing by executive decision is to reverse the legislative decision of this House. We should be clear about the implications.
I voted with the majority of the Committee to take this provision out of the Bill. I do not believe that the criterion of having one grandparent born here establishes, in law, the principle of free entry for those with close family ties in this country. I have worked out, without exaggerated arithmetic, that this would give free right of entry to somebody one of whose grandparents left this country as a babe in arms in about the year 1800. One cannot honestly say that people in that category have close family ties with this country. There are others with much


closer family ties. Although it is difficult to try to define this in law, if one is seeking to give people outside the country a right of entry based on close family ties it should be on a judgment of what family connections they have in this country. That ought to apply right across the board to members of any Commonwealth country.
I contrast this generosity to the 8 million people who come under the heading of "close family ties" with the treatment of 247 heads of households who at present are in camps in Europe and whose wives and children are United Kingdom passport holders who came here during the Uganda exodus. If there are people with strong claims of close family ties they are surely those 247 people.
I do not know whether the Home Secretary read the report in last week's Sunday Telegraph under the head,
Refugee boy died pining for father
It is a blot on the humanity of this country that we are unable to deal with the problem of the relatively small number of people who have their families here and who, at the moment, according to our rules are unable to enter the country.
This brings me to the main criticism that my colleagues and I have of the regulations as they remain unaltered from those which were presented to the House earlier, and of the Government's attitude to United Kingdom passport holders. It formed an important part of the Home Secretary's statement when he presented the rules, though, as he rightly reminded us, there is nothing in the rules on the subject. But what is his attitude towards those who are under a legal requirement to leave the country in which they at present have their abode?
This problem arose some time ago with a few individuals in Kenya who landed in prison because they had been required to leave the territory but had not been granted a voucher by the British High Commission. Fortunately, this problem does not arise currently in Kenya, but it does in Tanzania, and I wonder whether whoever is to conclude the debate from the Treasury Bench will give us the numbers of our citizens who are at present imprisoned in Tanzania—if there are any—because they have quite correctly, under the law of that country,

been required to leave after their work permits expired, but have been unable to do so because they have not been granted vouchers. They have a very good claim to be allowed in.
I want to take issue with the Home Secretary on what he said in his statement on 25th January and repeated tonight. He repeated the British Government's view that they had an obligation to admit United Kingdom passport holders, and said that he wanted to exercise this by admitting them in a controlled and orderly manner, through the special voucher scheme. He said last month that
this is as much as it is reasonable and realistic for us to do if good community relations are to be maintained in Britain. I make this statement now so that the Governments and individual people concerned may be aware of the exact nature of Her Majesty's Governments policy in this matter".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January 1973; Vol. 849, c. 656.]
Frankly, it is the exact nature of the policy that is entitrely up in the air. If the Government are attempting unilaterally to repudiate an obligation which earlier they had accepted and which had always been accepted, we are entitled to press the question: what is the Government's policy in the event of an unfortunate—and, I hope, unlikely—mass expulsion of our citizens from elsewhere? It is not useful to conduct a public debate on this sensitive issue but it was not those who object to the Government's policy who raised the matter; it was the Home Secretary himself. Quite apart from the principle which he raised, which I believe to be utterly wrong, it is also politically inept to raise this matter at a time when we must hope that the voucher system is proceeding perfectly in the other East African territories and when there is no prospect on the horizon of the repetition of the Ugandan tragedy. We all hope that it will not occur again.
When the Home Secretary repeats his concern for good community relations in this country I remind him of what New Society said in an editorial which has been quoted with approval by the Race Relations Unit of the British Council of Churches, namely, that
There is a serious danger that the phrase 'for the sake of good community relations' will become devalued if it alone is used as the justification for racially discriminatory immigration policies.


I am afraid that the statement—left in the air as it was on 25th January and repeated again tonight—that we are, in effect, anticipating a breach of obligations in international law, will cause great concern to our citizens in the East African territories, and will cause entirely unnecessary political difficulties within this country.
During the Ugandan crisis the Prime Minister made it quite clear that we have a moral and legal obligation. The Home Secretary told the Conservative Party Conference that the obligation was no accident. He was reported as saying:
We did it deliberately. We knew quite well what we were doing.
He said that he would not have remained a member of a Government who dishonoured that obligation. That obligation is still there. It is not disappearing, and I do not believe that it could be made to disappear by a unilateral statement by a Minister. We are right this evening very carefully to probe what is meant. As the Sunday Times said in a leading article in the week of that statement, the Home Secretary assumed
that by making this kind of assertion, Britain can persuade, even compel, governments there not to expel British passport-holders. But if such expulsions occur it will hardly matter to Kenya that Britain has said she will not take them. From Kenya's standpoint, and in the view of international law, they are unambiguously a British responsibility. On the whole, the chances seem greater rather than smaller that this kind of pre-emptive declaration will actually increase the pressures on the Kenyan Government to expel the Asians whom, however deplorably, many Africans see as a menace.
When I was last in Kenya, in October, talking to African politicians and Asian leaders, I got the impression that things were settling down and that the voucher system was working reasonably well. The Minister should be frank with the House in telling us the apparent arithmetic. According to my calculations, if the present voucher system continues to operate smoothly during the next three or four years the problem will have largely been overcome—but I should like confirmation of that from the Government.
When the 1971 measure was introduced the House was told that it was to fulfil a pledge by this Government to introduce a unified system of immigration

control. Whatever else may be said it cannot be pretended that this ragbag of regulations provides a unified system of immigration control. Until we get down to framing a citizenship law and having one system of immigration control, my colleagues and I will continue to vote against these regulations.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Brian Harrison: It would be churlish if one did not welcome any concessions from a Government who have taken back some orders which the House has rejected. I must welcome the concessions that have been made, particularly the apparent increase in flexibility in the application of some of the regulations to Commonwealth people.
I think we would be very foolish if we did not realise how much damage has been done to the relations between Britain, Australia and New Zealand in particular by the introduction of the combined rules, lumping, as it were, aliens and Commonwealth citizens together. After all, it should have been obvious that the aliens were not going to say with great delight "We are all being treated as Commonwealth citizens." It would have been equally obvious that the Commonwealth citizens would have said "Look, we are now being treated as aliens." There was very strong feeling.
I asked in Australia recently one of our Deputy High Commissioners whether he had had any objections to these rules and his comment to me was "Come up into my office for a moment and I will take my shirt off and you can see the lash marks." Feelings ran very high, and I think we should do everything we can to mend the bridges that have been broken. It was doubly unfortunate that these rules came out just at the time when there were changes of Government in Australia and New Zealand, and I think they have had quite an effect on some of the policies that have been introduced recently.
These rules tend to point out the change—an historical change—of our turning more towards Europe, and we must also realise that in other countries like Australia and New Zealand we shall see an increasing turning towards countries around the Pacific. For that reason


it is very important that we make concessions to keep the links between the countries—Canada, Australia and New Zealand—which are in particular orientated round the Pacific.
I am very glad that the instruction on the working holiday has been laid down as one year to begin with, and then the concession extended to five years rather than three. I really cannot believe that there is any justification for a working holiday of more than five years, although in certain cases I know that three years has been insufficient time for people to get the required experience and see what they want to see both in Britain and in Europe.
I greatly regret that the patrial or grandpatrial concept is still being used. When I was in New Zealand at the same time as my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was there, it was obvious that this was causing a lot of trouble, and the Prime Minister of New Zealand made a statement to the effect that New Zealand was trying to bring about integration. I think it probably true that New Zealand has been one of the most successful nations of the world in integrating two races, the Maoris and the European settlers, and I am sure that the patrial concept has tended to divide the people there, accentuating the difference between the Maoris and the rest of the people now settled in New Zealand.
I should like clarification on two matters. I take, first, the position of business men. More and more Canadian, Australian and New Zealand companies are working or establishing subsidiaries over here, and it is far from clear, as I read the rules, in what circumstances representatives of those companies will be able to establish themselves and stay working in the United Kingdom.
The other question relates to the concession in regard to husbands which was asked for but which does not seem to have been made. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) took this up with reference to one specific category. In the last debate, hon. Members pointed out that, very often for family reasons, perhaps to take up responsibilities in looking after parents, a daughter will have to come back to the United Kingdom. It is still

not clear whether husbands will be allowed to come in if they are not patrials of one kind or another.
Now that we have separate rules for Commonwealth immigrants, I hope that discussions will be pushed ahead firmly with the other Governments and that arrangements giving still greater concessions for Commonwealth citizens coming from the older Dominions to the United Kingdom will be made.
In short, I welcome the concessions which have been made. I am sorry that they have not gone far enough, but one must accept what has been done, and for this reason I can support the rules on this occasion.

9.48 p.m.

Miss Joan Lestor: From a study of the rules and the speech of the Home Secretary, it seems to me that the main concession as compared with the rules which were thrown out last year is that 8 million people from Canada, New Zealand and Australia are now free to come to this country as workers. The Home Secretary added, however—and this was of great significance—"We do not expect that they will come", and went on to say—I hope that I do not misquote him—"If an event occurred and it was likely that we should have a large number of these people wanting to come in, the House can be assured that we should not hesitate to take action about it".
We should not be in the position we are in now over the East African Asians if promises of right of entry had not been given and then, the moment they tried to exercise that promised right, the very people who were the authors of the concession—the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and others—said, "But we did not mean it. We were only kidding. We do not want you to come". Yet that, in effect, is precisely what the Home Secretary said tonight.
The right hon. Gentleman suggests that we will be generous. He says, it effect, "All of you may come here but do not try it, because if you do we may stop you". I have not misrepresented him. He had to say it, and I will tell the House why. As the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) said, some of us in the


General Election fought opponents—some now in this House—who said that the Conservatives would cut immigration and not allow any more people to come to this country. So the right hon. Gentleman had to say what he did tonight, otherwise he would have had to say, "Yes, we said that, but now we are opening the door to another 8 million people".
When the right hon. Gentleman makes his submission about the Kenyan Asians on the ground of good community relations here, he should extend it to the argument he has used tonight. As the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles also reminded him, many of us thought that all immigration was to come under one heading—that everyone was going to be treated the same. But in the last debate my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) pointed out that there were five categories of Commonwealth immigrant alone. I do not know how many we have now, because I am confused as to what the rules mean. Times have certainly changed since the General Election. It will have been noticed by those to whom we are making concessions in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
We are in terrible confusion on immigration in that British passport holders who do not live here have fewer rights than EEC nationals, according to the different rules, and fewer rights than those whose grandfathers were horn in this country but who themselves do not live here. I am not objecting to the rights extended to nationals of the EEC countries. It has never been part of my case against British entry into the EEC that I dislike white Europeans as much as some hon. Members dislike all foreigners and do not want us to have anything to do with other people. One of the decent things about the EEC is that it is likely to bring people closer together.
It is a strange situation. Community nationals coming to this country to work will have the right to bring their families. That is a good thing. I believe—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman believes—that if a man comes here to work he should have the right to bring his family and dependants with him, and have a stable abode. But it does seem odd that when we have made a concession, which

we may or may not mean, to 8 million people, and when we have to allow EEC nationals to come here to work and to bring in their families, we apparently cannot allow in 300 men whose families are already in the country, being British passport holders. I am referring, of course, to the Asian heads of families now excluded from taking up residence here.
I do not understand the logic of the rules. Indeed, they are utterly illogical. The right hon. Gentleman is adopting a generous attitude to Australia, Canada and New Zealand and to our Community colleagues. I ask him to be a little generous to the 300 men whose wives and children are in this country but who are themselves barred from entering. I do not fear the reaction of the British people to a decision to allow these men in. I believe that they would understand if the right hon. Gentleman opened the door to these men and allowed them to join their families and begin to maintain them—which is very important—and to set up a stable relationship. It is not much to ask for that concession.
Then there is the question of discrimination against women. In 1969, discrimination was written into the immigration rules. We have moved a long way since then. We have had legislation on the guardianship of infants, on domicile, and on equal pay, and we have had our recent victory on the anti-discrimination law, which at least has some relationship to women. Here again, in view of the numbers to which the right hon. Gentleman referred he could be a little more generous to women. He could grant them rights that he has granted to men immigrants.
More than anything else, or as much as anything else, he can be more generous than he has been to the wives of deportees. It is true that there are rights of appeal, and that some concessions have been made, but we have reached a situation in which women have the right to stand as independent individuals and must not be made to suffer for the sins of their husbands.
The Home Secretary has said that before Christmas we were morally and legally right to accept the entry of the Ugandan Asians, who were in great difficulties. I was one of the first on this side to support him in that view, and


I have continued to support him, but if it was morally and legally right at the season of good will surely it must be right after that season has passed.
I am fully aware of the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties in this respect. I understand the pressures put upon him and the problems he foresees among people on his side and elsewhere if he says that the same rights should apply to these people in Kenya as applied to those who were thrown out of Uganda in similar circumstances. Unfortunately, he cannot leave the matter there. Either he has to say that in no circumstances will the people from Kenya be admitted to this country, and that we wash our hands of the whole affair, or that despite the difficulties involved in their expulsion this country will accept responsibility for them, and will do so in discussions with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, and with others, to ensure that they are found homes. If the countries that previously made offers cannot now honour those offers, the problem is still our responsibility. If that is not his case, let the right hon. Gentleman say so, and we will all know where we stand.
Some of us who have taken part in these debates over the years have seen the House and the Conservative Party move from concession to concession, but always, it seems to me, to the detriment and not to the enhancement of race relations here. I believe that the first big mistake on immigration was made in 1962 when, with the passing of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, the whole country was pushed into the situation of discussing immigration always in the context of colour and never in the context of anything else. That is why the Home Secretary, tonight, is able to say, "Yes, we will open the door to 8 million people, most of whom will be white, but will close it firmly to large numbers of people who may have the right to come here but are distinguishable by colour."
That is what the whole argument is about, and what it has always been about. I have never changed my view that until we get an immigration policy—EEC entry notwithstanding—that bases itself not on colour but on skills and needs of people, perhaps the needs of the country from which those people come, and our economic needs, we will be

for ever damaging race relations at home and abroad. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles. Members of my Front Bench have said time and again that we need an overhaul of the citizenship laws, and we are still a long way from having it.
We told the East African Asians "You are free to come here. You may have a British passport." But the moment they wanted to come, we said "We did not mean it." Two hon. Members who are now present have said that over and over again. Having endorsed that, how can the Home Secretary say tonight that we shall open the door to 8 million people from Canada, Australia and New Zealand, but we reserve the right to stop them coming to this country if they ever try to exercise their right?

10 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I very much hope, no less devoutly than my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that we shall approve the rules tonight. But I must add, though it seems ungracious to do so, that for my own reasons I have certain reservations and doubts. They are not the same as those just expressed by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor).
First, one thing we have clearly learnt since 1962 is that the pattern of immigration changes much more rapidly than we can legislate for or prescribe rules for. The amended rules may, as my right hon. Friend said on 25th January, reflect the Government's determination to ensure strict control of immigration, but I am much less sure that they will reduce the level of immigration. There are aspects of them that may have a contrary effect. For example, though I appreciate that it is done to bring us into line with Europe, the raising of the age of children as dependants from 16 to 18 will have an opposite effect.

Mr. R. Carr: That was done in 1962. My right hon. Friend may have forgotten that.

Mr. Deedes: But our policy since then has had many modifications that have enabled us to consider 16 as the normal and 18 as the exceptional. That has been the application of the policy.
The extended working holiday will also have an opposite effect. It is causing a


certain amount of misgivings to some of our posts overseas that will have the task of administering the rule. It will be very well used by a number of people, but it lends itself to certain abuses and will be difficult to control. Although I appreciate the reason for my right hon. Friend's introducing it, so will making the term of six months for visitors the normal rather than the exception.
I understand that for every visitor who is allowed to stay for more than three months, 20 are restricted to three months or less. Therefore, a change to six months as the normal will make a big difference, particularly if the six months does not carry with it, as I think it does not at present, the use of embarkation and disembarkation cards so that the visitor can be checked on arrival and departure.
That is the first area of my doubts. Secondly, while I wholly share the feelings of my right hon. and hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison), who felt that we had dealt harshly with the old Commonwealth under the former rules, especially when combined with our EEC arrangements, I am very doubtful whether the changes that have been made will produce the results that they hope for. It is a remarkable fact, which I think has escaped notice, that in each of the past six years there has been a substantial exodus from this country of Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders. That cannot be taken as a comparison of visitors entering and leaving in one year compared with another. It is a continual process.
I do not pretend to know the reason, but the House should have the facts. For example, in 1972 the net outflow was 70,000, 36,000 of them Canadians and 24,000 of them Australians. Over the six years the total net outflow has been 66,000 Australians, 146,000 Canadians and 31,000 New Zealanders—a total over the six years of not far short of ¼ million. Therefore, it seems that the pressures in a sense are not towards us but away from us. In view of some of the things that have been said in some places earlier, this fact should be noted. We are opening a door through which people are departing,

not arriving. In doing so, we are creating certain fresh difficulties for ourselves.
My last area of doubt is whether the new rules in the longest term reflect the priorities we should have in mind. One of the most anxious areas—it has been repeatedly referred to in the debate—is East Africa. I do not have to explain why this is so. Aside from my right hon. Friend's generalised warning of 25th January, we have taken certain other precautions. We must hope that they will avail, but we cannot be sure.
What we can be sure of, and what the House and the country should be aware of, is the position of the Government of India in all this. Some of us have had recent experience of this and can speak with a certain amount of authority. The position of the Government of India in all this is far from unhelpful. It is also crucial. There is no need to enter into details, but the country should get the general drift.
It is assumed far too widely that India and the Government of India encourage immigration to this country. They do nothing of the kind. The Government of India cannot stop immigration into this country, but they do not like it. They are well aware of our difficulties and are not disposed to be critical of restrictions that we impose, provided that they go right across the board and do not appear to discriminate against Asians. I think that I have stated the position fairly and correctly. It is important that it be realised.
If we are realistic, this is where the new rules put us in some difficulty. Whatever interpretation we may put upon them here—I do not agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough; I do not accept that they are of a discriminatory character—they will be seen and are seen in India as discriminatory. It is the one area of our new approach about which doubts are felt very strongly in Delhi. The new rules will be so seen by many in Congress in that light. Indian Ministers will be attacked on that score, and they know this, and will be urged strongly by members of Congress to take counter-action against us. That makes them anxious, and it makes it harder to Ministers to assist us in what may be yet a critical situation in East Africa and


elsewhere. It makes it harder for Indian Ministers to do what the country and the House should know that they are anxious to do.
I must say bluntly, dealing with facts, not with emotions, that it should be borne in mind that the Government of India have certainly in respect of Uganda—I suspect that they might do the same if the situation arose in Kenya—done considerably more than the Governments of what we call the older Commonwealth countries. Those will be unwelcome sentiments to some of my right hon. and hon.

Friends, but we should be aware of the realities.
I am persuaded that prolonging a discussion over these rules would not be in our interests and would not assist the considerations I have mentioned. Our best course is to let them go through quietly. I hope that when fresh rules come before us, as they surely will, and we shall have a succession of them in the months and years ahead, they will accord a degree more closely to the realities of immigration now and our wish to restrict it.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: The House is indebted to the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), who is hot foot from India and is also Chairman of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, so what he has to say is wisdom born of experience. He has pre-empted one or two things which I wanted to say, so I will underscore the parts of his speech which I like and to which the Government must give serious attention.
I was with the right hon. Member for Ashford on a previous trip to India. What he has said is not new. The Indian leaders understand that we have to have a restrictionist policy of entry into this country which has to be based primarily on work opportunities. They must see our policy in the world setting as free of ethnic, racial or colour discrimination. By introducing a concept of patriality the Government have upset people here and abroad and have made matters worse.
In their election manifesto the Government said that they would stop further large-scale immigration. That policy was included in the Queen's Speech and the Government were stuck with it, although large-scale immigration had already been substantially stopped before the 1971 Act. Now the Government have to try to produce a set of rules to fit the 1971 Act which was entirely needless.
That is borne out by the activities of the Home Secretary on the question of patriality. By the efforts of that unholy alliance of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and the Opposition, patriality was cut out of the 1971 Immigration Act. That took us one step forward—not a magnificent stride—towards the concept of citizenship which is what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West wants and what every other hon. Member seems to want. It cannot be dodged for much longer.
I wish to refer to the plight of the Ugandan Asian British passport holders who are separated from the breadwinner of the family—I think there are 247, but I am not sure about the number. The

breadwinners are in three countries in Europe. The position was acceptable in the early stages when the Home Secretary was dealing with a critical situation. Wives and children who were British passport holders were admitted whereas heads of families who were not British passport holders were not. Many people cannot understand how this has come about. We were obliged to give shelter to British passport holders but not to those who did not hold British passports. That might have been a valid situation to sustain for a brief while, but it is the time factor which is at work here, and in the conscience of this country with all its traditions of humanity that cannot be sustained for very much longer.
I, along with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, share a sense of disappointment that the Home Secretary has not seen fit to use the occasion of this debate to make an announcement on this score. I promise the Home Secretary, and the Under-Secretary of State who is the immigration Minister—to whom I write, I think, daily—that he will have to deal with Members of Parliament who are continuously affected and coming under pressure not only from the people originating from Uganda, not only from immigrants who have been here a long time, but also from other people concerned with community relationships, people of all colours, creeds and political beliefs, who are equally concerned about it. So the Government must be in a crunch situation where they must make some move. Failing their ability to get the families suitably settled in other countries, it seems that those families will have to become settled here.
With my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) I applauded the Government for the immediate plans they made in setting up the Uganda Resettlement Board, but there is one thing I wish to take the opportunity of this debate to raise.
It appears that once the people are out of the camps, and there is no compulsion on them to remain in the camps, they scatter and many of them live in very unsatisfactory housing conditions, as a number of them currently do in my constituency. There seems, after that


occurs, no responsibility on the Uganda Resettlement Board thereafter to seek to do something about those families' housing situation.
This is of very great importance if we are to relieve the indigenous people of anxieties which inevitably arise out of the arrival of the newcomers amongst them, because it is pressure on housing which is the effect most acutely felt of all. In areas such as my constituency, which is grossly overcrowded, what we look forward to is a betterment of the situation and not worsening of it.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): It may help the hon. Member if I say that I am looking forward to going to his constituency to see this problem for myself next Wednesday.

Mr. Bidwell: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much, but he cannot see it properly unless he sees it with me. I think suitable arrangements may be made.
It seems to me that much of the 1971 Act was needless because the Government could have made changes by regulations. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition set up the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. It seems to me that that Government and this Government bought a pretty expensive dog, and it seems to me that this Government have bought a dog but want to do the barking themselves. What they should have done was charge the all-party Select Committee, with its collective experiences, its trippings abroad, and seeing the immigration and race relations problems as they affect us here, with the task of going effectively into questions of all immigration, and not only Commonwealth immigration.
My major quarrel with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is over his apparent concern about colour. He has, of course, said that he would be equally concerned if there were a big increase of people who were yellow or non-black or non-brown, but he constantly refers to it. I ask him to understand what effect that has on people who are friendly with coloured people, on people who are coloured themselves, and on people who have children. He has talked about the

wide-grinning piccaninny. I wonder what effect he thinks that has on, for example, a mixed colour family with a thick-lipped child—the wide-grinning piccaninny about whom he spoke. That is the right hon. Gentleman's disastrous attitude to this problem. He has not got a constructive thought in his head about it. I do not think that many working people, if they are serious and intelligent, are any longer led astray by the right hon. Gentleman. We must get beyond thinking of people as the lumpen proletariat of Marxism.
The Government have made a mess of things. This is not the end of the road. As has been said, we have complicated the matter. We have this great diversity of immigration control affecting different countries. Time does not allow me to go into the control system affecting Canada, Australia and New Zealand. They have different methods. We certainly could not build a reciprocal system with Canada on the basis of patriality.
Australia and New Zealand are openly talking about requiring people emigrating from Britain to those countries taking New Zealand and Australian citizenship. They are proceeding towards the problem which we must necessarily face. We have the historic oddity of having been connected with the Commonwealth. In the Nationality Act 1948, almost starry-eyed, we designated practically the whole Commonwealth as British citizens. We cannot make such people British citizens and then deny them the opportunity of entering this country.
I have always adopted the view that we should exercise a control policy which is seen to be fair. The best way would be to base it on work opportunity here. I do not believe in the kith and kin idea. It can go as far as one generation. However, I do not see why a rogue from Australia should have absolute free entry and unfettered right of settlement here while we are obliged under the rules to turn down worthy people from other parts of the world who are likely to make a great contribution to our economy and society.
The Government have missed out. They stated as a preamble to the 1971 Act that they wanted a situation free of discrimination on the basis of ethnic


origin and colour. The Labour Government, in the 1965 and 1968 Race Relations Acts, wished to have a similar situation internally. That cannot be done if it is not seen to be operating on an international scale.
The present rules, which have to be attached to the 1971 Act, do not do that. They cause great anxiety among coloured people here. We are putting new Commonwealth worker entrants non-patrial on the same basis as aliens, despite what the Home Secretary said. It is no wonder that someone at the India High Commission Office, when the 1971 Act was passed, said "Does your Government want coolie labour?" Whether that is correct or not, that is how it is seen by people whose pigment of the skin is different from ours.
The Government have missed out again. They have gone over towards trying to placate the pressures within their own party, which happily the Labour Party does not have in great substance.

Mr. William Clark: Ask the NUM.

Mr. Bidwell: People are not worried about the colour of the skin. They are worried about social pressures, unemployment, overcrowding and housing particularly in our great conurbations and cities. That has nothing to do with immigrant people who make a contribution to our economy far greater than the indigenous people in terms of the younger generation, and so forth. That is a fact of life. It has been discovered to be so, and it should be said to be so again and again.
As I said to the Home Secretary about the tragic incident at the Indian High Commission yesterday, our Select Committee found that people of Asian origin in this country were more law-abiding than the rest of us. I do not know whether the Home Secretary gets other impressions. One imagines that only one type of correspondence comes into his office and that it does not necessarily portray the genuine and humane feelings of the British people.
In the end, we shall get it right. We have not got it right in these rules because we did not get it right in the Act in the first place.

10.25 p.m.

Dame Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devanport): I hope that the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) will forgive me if I do not take up any of his points. Instead I wish to raise one specific matter related to au pairs and domestic workers.
For a number of years I have been trying to establish some real organisation of these girls. I have been trying to get the Government to sign the European Convention on au pairs which would give them full protection. Now the door will be opened even wider.
Au pairs used to be people who came to this country to learn English. The original idea was for an exchange both ways between two countries, a country not speaking English and an English-speaking country—in other words Great Britain.
The term au pair is a misnomer. To a certain extent, it is now a paid occupation.
These rules say that an au pair must live as a member of a resident English-speaking family. However, an English-speaking family may not be a British family. A great many Indians are English-speaking, for example. What is more, is it the intention to allow girls to come here to work, because I am certain that they will be used more as domestic servants? Then what is the point of the rules covering Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders who already speak English? Surely they should come under another category.
The rules also say that where an immigration officer is satisfied that an au pair arrangement has been made a girl will normally be admitted for up to 12 months. However, it is quite impossible for an immigration officer to be satisfied about that. Girls come in without contracts. Most of them carry letters saying "To whom it may concern: My daughter would like a job as an au pair and would like to go into a family." No inspection is made. They very seldom report to the police. Day in and day out The Times and the Evening Standard carry advertisements for au pair girls. That is not the original intention of the arrangement. The idea was for exchanges between families to be arranged.
I hope that consideration will be given to this problem. It is reaching great


proportions. At one time there were about 40,000 foreign girls in this country, though there are considerably fewer at present. But what is worrying is the fact that many girls come great distances from countries like Japan, the Philippines and from behind the Iron Curtain. They are not used to this type of life. I have mentioned this before in the House and I make no apology for doing so again. During the postal strike, a number of Japanese girls were paying £3 a week to work. The postal strike prevented money reaching them from their homes and they were unable to work as a result.
I want to see difficulties of this kind avoided. Unless I receive a really satisfactory answer, I am afraid that I shall have to abstain if the House divides on this matter. I have raised it on the Adjournment and we have discussed it in the Council of Europe. We must have some kind of contract.
Now that the Private Member's Bill, debated last Friday, will ensure that employment agencies will be licensed, that should help. At the moment, anyone can set up an au pair employment agency. I know of several run by a not very desirable type of person. In desperation, I got this agreement with the Norwegian Government on the lines of the European Convention on au pairs. It has been very successful. At that time I was asked by the then Government not to approach any other embassy to get a similar agreement. But, having tried this system with the Norwegians, I suggest that it works very well. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend, whom I have been to see about this—I have seen three Home Secretaries and four Under-Secretaries, and have also led five deputations to different Ministers—will concede that it is time that some action was taken.
On the question of the textile firms, I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, who now says that these workers will be debarred from being recruited from this country in future. He says in his letter to me "We shall stick to our line." I hope that on this occasion we shall stick to our line, because there are so many instances of this abuse.
However, when I read further in the letter I became worried again. Dealing with the domestic workers and the skilled workers allowed under the rules, which,

my hon. Friend said, meant "not a craftsman or an operative", he went on to say that foreign workers from distant countries take unskilled work in hotels and the catering industry, and added:
These workers are admitted only for the season—March 1st to October 31st. We think that it is unlikely that they earn enough to pay their fare home at the end of the season.
That is unrealistic. One knows what wages these people can earn. I should have thought that this should be stopped. I am told that the domestic workers whom I am concerned about are scattered throughout the country.
These are the two points that I am concerned about. This is not the first, second or third time that I have mentioned them, and I hope that this time we shall get some action. I regret to say that there is a considerable racket going on—although this is not so in every case—in the employment of these girls, particularly those coming from long distances. Tonight, unless I get a satisfactory answer, I shall be forced to abstain.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: The Home Secretary has managed to achieve what would have appeared impossible. He has managed to make the present immigration rules even more confusing than they were before. We now have no fewer than eight categories of people all with various procedures relating to their entry to this country. The first are patrial passport holders. The second are non-patrial passport holders. The third are patrial Commonwealth citizens. The fourth are the new privileged élite, non-patrial Commonwealth citizens with a United Kingdom grandparent. It follows from that that we have a new set of under-privileged and deprived people, those unfortunate, non-patrial Commonwealth citizens without a United Kingdom grandparent. Then there are the citizens of the Irish Republic, other EEC nationals and other non-Commonwealth nationals.
This is pretty impressive: no wonder our immigration laws are in a hopeless and disgraceful mess. The right hon. Gentleman has done it by an administrative decision. He knows full well why he has done it, and what the effect of it is. He knows that what he has done is to allow the possibility of entry to 8


million people, most of whom he well knows will be white, and most of whom he intends should be white.
What the right hon. Gentleman has also done is to ensure that those people have preference over United Kingdom passport holders towards whom Britain has a legal and moral obligation but to whom, in his announcement, he wagged his finger and told them in no uncertain terms that they would not be welcome.
The Home Secretary showed considerable courage and compassion when he said, at the Conservative Party conference and elsewhere, that this country had a legal and moral obligation towards those who had United Kingdom passports. If that was right then, the Home Secretary well knows that it is right now. It is no good saying "You have the right but you cannot come in." If he is saying that they cannot come in, will he alter the law to make it impossible for them to come in? Words mean what they say, and the Home Secretary should use words very carefully.
If the Home Secretary or the Government were so concerned about what I would loosely call kith and kin, about allowing people who have had what the hon. Gentleman calls a family connection with this country to come in, when the clause dealing with grandfathers was defeated in Committee—like the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), I was one of those who voted against it—why did not the Home Secretary introduce a clause on Report so that hon. Members could debate it and vote? He did not do that, so at that stage, apparently, he or the Government did not feel sufficiently strongly about it.
The right hon. Gentleman has not had the courage to do it. The Government have sneaked it in in the rule and hoped to get away with it. They sneaked it in because they knew that they were under pressure from their backbenchers. They should have the guts to say so.
There were parts of the previous rules which I found objectionable, and those parts are still in these rules. If the Home Secretary can juggle around and alter the Committee's decision about the patriality rule, why does he not juggle, with the same sleight of hand, and re-

move the objectionable rule about family deportation. It is no good him saying that it was in the original Act, because the grandfather clause was taken out of the original Act. He can now take out the family deportation clause, too.
The right hon. Gentleman may think that I am being very harsh with him, but I know his difficulty. None the less, when so few people are likely to be affected, perhaps no more than three or four a year, why is it necessary to retain a rule that means that two, three or possibly four women who have themselves done no harm are to be slung out of the country because the breadwinner has committed a crime? It is not necessary. It certainly will not clutter up the country anything like as badly as the 8 million people the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to allow in. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, as a reasonable man, will think this out again.
I hope that at some stage, coming out of these rules, we shall have a sensible law about citizenship. We cannot go on and on adding to the categories, adding to the list of confusion and making life that little more intolerable, difficult, confusing and complicated for people who want to enter this country. I hope that when we next debate this very important subject, some Government—preferably comprised of my right hon. and hon. Friends—will introduce a sensible and sane law on it.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In the debate on 22nd November last year, which is the reason why tonight we are debating a new version of the immigration rules, the chief consideration which operated on the minds of many hon. Members, certainly on this side of the House, was the sense of intolerable anomaly between the rights which would be enjoyed by citizens of the old Commonwealth countries and those which accrue to citizens of the countries of Western Europe under the European Economic Community.
I gladly recognise that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made great attempts to bridge that gap and to reduce that anomaly; and he has told the House tonight that he hopes to make further progress in doing so. It must be recognised that we have placed


ourselves in the hands of the laws and rule of the EEC. That pole at any rate cannot be moved. So there is no stage at which my right hon. Friend would be able fully to meet what I believe was the desire and instinct of the majority of Members of this House. Nevertheless, so much effort has been made to meet those wishes that it would be wrong for the motion to reject these rules to find support tonight. There are, however, certain causes for anxiety that I wish to put on record.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) drew attention to the fact that these rules, not for the first time, virtually extend the definition of a dependant from a person aged 16 and under to a person aged 18 and under, and that whereas the statutory definition ceases at 16 years, this has been raised to 18 by administrative process under the rules. I believe this was wrong when it was originally done in 1962 and that it is wrong still. The fact that it is of 10 years' duration is no reason for maintaining it. The would-be immigrant of 17 or 18 is nearly always a fully adult working person, in no way different from those who require vouchers in order to be admitted to this country. He is also a person outside the scope and period of compulsory education. These, then, are people who, if they are to be admitted at all, should be admitted on the same grounds as full adults, and by means of voucher. I hope that this point will be looked at again.
However, the major point is that which has repeatedly recurred in this debate: the re-introduction of the qualifying grandmother, if I may so describe her. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary can say with justice that the context is not precisely the same as that in which the qualifying grandparent first appeared in the 1971 Immigration Bill. Nevertheless, what is happening in substance is that these rules are being used to overturn a decision taken by Parliament; for the proposition placed before this House in the 1971 Bill was that a distinction should be drawn between two classes of Commonwealth citizen, otherwise identical, according to whether they had or did not have at least one grandparent born in the United Kingdom. The decision of the Committee was against this, and that decision was accepted by the Government

in not seeking to amend on Report or at any later stage of the proceedings.
It seems to me constitutionally objectionable that rules should be used in that way to reverse a decision of principle by this House. I realise that my right hon. Friend can say—indeed, he has implied—that it is very convenient that there should be the flexibility which the rules give. He has even held out the prospect that at some future time this concession might be withdrawn, and pointed out that it would be easier to do so if it is only contained in rules. That is an argument which would be valid if, in the Act, that matter had been left open. In fact, it was a point which was decided in the course of the legislation, and I do not think that the Administration is entitled now to go back and by the use of a rule reverse that decision.
I fear that we shall find that the practical results of the reversal are unsatisfactory. We shall find that the distinction in the Old Commonwealth countries between those who have a grandparent born here and those who have not is totally unreal and unsustainable and is felt to be so by the people of those countries. After all, all of us acquainted with Australia or New Zealand know that there is no substantial difference in outlook and sentiment between families originating in this country who have lived in Australia for two, three or four generations and those where there happens to be one grandparent born in this country. To do as we are doing will not be seen, when time goes on, as something designed to meet the claims of sentiment, but rather as an affront.
I noticed that there was marked agreement, explicit agreement, between the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) and the Home Secretary, in that they both wished to recognise the special status, the special relationship, of the three Old Commonwealth countries. If we want to do that, there is only one way to do it. That is, to take the citizens of the Old Commonwealth countries as being the people whom those countries regard as their citizens and not try to pick and choose between them.
I fear that even in the context of the Old Commonwealth we shall not find this distinction sustainable. But perhaps my right hon. Friends do not realise that this


question of the qualifying grandparent is not a matter restricted to the Old Commonwealth countries. This rule will have a very important bearing for citizens of the New Commonwealth countries. For example, these new patrials are to have special concessions for husbands joining wives and for male fiances joining those whom they are to marry. I believe this will put great additional pressure on what are already sensitive points in the control of immigration from the New Commonwealth countries. It will create new anomalies between the treatment of Old Commonwealth citizens and New Commonwealth citizens, which will be resolved, or will tend to be resolved, by an increase in the total numbers admitted.
What is much more important—and I wonder if it is realised—is the large and increasing reservoir in the New Commonwealth of persons born in the United Kingdom. Every year there return to the countries of the New Commonwealth families with children——

Mr. Robert Hughes: That is when the Home Secretary will stop it.

Mr. Powell: —families who may have stayed only briefly in this country but with children who were born in the United Kingdom. The result is that there will be built up under these rules a new privileged category, eventually very large in numbers, which will be able to claim virtually automatic rights of admission to this country. That seems to me to illustrate one of the unintended, almost unsuspected, difficulties into which we get by tinkering upon tinkering upon tinkering with these definitions.
I conclude therefore by saying that I hope we can regard these rules and the legislation which lies behind them as something temporary and transitional. One of the more encouraging features of recent months has been the fact that whenever there has been mention from the Front Bench of the desirability of a new law of citizenship, each time it has been mentioned with a slightly increased sense of urgency, a slightly increased sense of reality.
I believe that more and more hon. Members are coming to realise that we shall not be clear of these tormenting

difficulties until we at last address ourselves to that task and realise that it is not a task which can be left for years, to Parliaments of the future. It is a task to which we have to address ourselves now with all the energy at my right hon. Friend's command.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis: It is not often that I agree with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), but during his observations in Committee on the "grandfather clause" and during his speech today he pointed out the absurdity of these provisions. He spoke of an affront to the old Commonwealth. But I tend to agree with the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) that the affront to the new Commonwealth will be felt much more on this issue.
The trouble with these rules is that they are based on an irrelevant Act. It was an Act founded on a false premise in 1971 that this country was then faced with mass immigration. That was simply not true. It was an Act passed with enormous haste. We had to have it by Whitsun 1971. Now, nearly two years later, it has not been fully implemented. An irrelevant Act inevitably produces ill-conceived rules, and who can doubt that these rules are ill-conceived? However much the Home Secretary may apply his sympathetic style to the support of the rules, he remains totally unconvincing because there are not principles enshrined in these rules—just prejudices.
The situation is bewilderingly complex, as has been pointed out by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. This complexity is bound to create injustice in respect of the appeals machinery and the rest.
The most offensive aspect of these rules is that they are racially biased. This is particularly discreditable because of the pretence that the policy is free from racial bias, for the Home Secretary says that this is written into the rules. That, in my submission, is absolutely irrelevant.
There is a revival here, by Statutory Instrument, of the "grandfather clause" to which a number of hon. Members have referred, which is, I think, a constitutional irregularity. It also leads to patent absurdities—the absurd distinction, to


which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has addressed himself, between individuals within the old white Commonwealth as to their entitlement to come here; the patent absurdity of the proposition that the rules have been changed to enable those who fought for their country to come here. Did not Indians and Pakistanis equally fight for this country in its time of trial? Are they not much more likely to be excluded as a result of these rules?
Then there is the absurdity of the family tie—that an old Commonwealth citizen with one English grandparent is allowed in while an Asian whose wife and children live here is excluded. Who has the closer family tie in those circumstances?
The rules are unquestionably biased against women. A woman is accorded a somewhat demeaning status when we take into account the debates that we had in this House recently. There is a complete disparity drawn between the way in which a man and a woman are treated under the Act and under the rules. This has led to the absurd situation that we now have concerning the Ugandan Asians, where, because a woman patrial is not accorded a right of abode or a right to work in her country the husband cannot join her here at the present time. This should be a right and not a privilege accorded at the discretion of the Home Secretary.
These rules are patently unfair because they will create enormous power in the hands of unscrupulous employers. The Commonwealth citizen with a work permit in this country for a probationary period of a year must stay with his employer. Tacitly he must satisfy that employer. Complaints, as far as he is concerned, are out. He cannot complain about his wages and conditions of work. If he does, he is captive in the hands of that employer, who must provide a reference to the authorities. He may be turned out of the country at the end of the probationary period.
The rules are far too rigid. That is exemplified by the case of Dumont, reported in the Immigration Appeal Report, 1972, in which an English woman was married to a Canadian. The adjudicator said:

The evidence, presented with great honesty, paints a picture of a serious, introvert family grouping, self-contained, devoted, unadaptable, far more likely to wilt than to respond vigorously to the challenge presented by family separation and life in a strange country. In my opinion serious hardship and harm would be likely to result to the family.
Yet the tribunal held that this did not constitute a sufficient degree of hardship to prevent expulsion. Rigidity of that kind brings the rules into contempt and does not accord with the principles of natural justice.

Mr. R. Carr: The hon. Member is quoting a case in 1972, when the rules in force were those of his Government.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I have never supported those rules, because I believe they are too rigid. I have felt for a long time that those rules needed revision, and the mere fact that they were made by the previous Labour Government does not matter. No doubt the Home Secretary approved of them. Does he approve of them today? Perhaps we will hear from his hon. Friend.
The appeals procedure is completely inadequate. There are many miscarriages of natural justice, and appeals authorities take a very narrow view of their powers to overrule decisions of the Home Secretary. We shall have an increasing number of miscarriages of justice.
There is no right of appeal in all sorts of cases: for example, the refusal of the Department of Employment to issue work permits or employment vouchers. All this is wrong. These are infringements of the rules of basic justice.
A further infringement is that people are not always permitted to attend their appeals or to be represented. How can justice be done in these circumstances? The Act, coupled with these rules, creates an unpleasant and disgraceful episode in the history of this country and if the House passes them today it should be ashamed of itself.

10.59 p.m.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: We heard earlier in this interesting debate an Orwellian description of the present rules from the Home Secretary. He said that the first object was to restrict entry into this country in a severe way. Yet, if the rules are passed, 213 million more people will be able to come in than could before.
The Home Secretary said that we were embarked on rules which would give a special priority to British citizens, but in a speech on 25th January he indicated that we would put British citizens on a lower level of priority than those who are patrial, those with grandparents born here, and those who have not been citizens for several generations. He said that he would pay great respect to close family ties, but this appears not to apply if they are ties between Ugandan Asians rather than between Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders.
When the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said that we were seeing a move further away from what was wanted—clear citizenship rules—he reflected a remark in the Sunday Times on 28th January which said:
The fear remains that these further changes will merely add another chapter in the continuing chaos.
I tell the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that those of us who agree with him that what we need are clear citizenship rules would accept his protestations rather more easily if, when he talks of citizenship rules, he were willing to include those of our citizens who are brown and black and not so clearly to attempt to exclude them.
The first major issue in the debate is the "grandfather clause"—the clause that was defeated in Committee in this House during the consideration of the 1971 Act and defeated again in the House of Lords, but which has been brought back by the Home Secretary under the guise of a change in the rules. It does not satisfy New Zealand; it is not making Australia happy; it has been rejected by Canada on the ground that it is divisive between her citizens.
One of the great difficulties about the "grandfather" rule is that it does not in the least please those very countries which hon. Members opposite have been seeking to please. The reason is obvious. Australia's policy, both under her present Government and their predecessors, is to weld together the old Australians and the new Australians—the Australians of British descent and the Australians of descent mainly from Western Europe, but we are making a distinction by this rule.
The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison) has pointed out—and he has reason to know—that one of the major policies of New Zealand is to integrate the Maori people with the large English majority. The rule makes that more difficult.
One of the main tasks of Canada—and this has been particularly remarked upon by the Canadian Government—is to attempt to integrate citizens of French descent with those of British descent. This new rule militates against that policy as well. Indeed, hon. Members opposite should think very carefully about whether, in the change that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman, they are pleasing those they sincerely and honourably wish to please.
The second major change is not, in fact, a change in the rules—alas, they have stayed the same—but a change in what has increasingly been the philosophy in the House. It relates, as has been pointed out, to the position of women. It is fair for the right hon. Gentleman to say that some of these restrictions were imposed under the 1968 Act. They were. But a great deal of water has gone under the bridges in the last five years.
In the last five years, this House has passed the Equal Pay Act and we have had the Second Reading of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Bill and the Second Reading of the Guardianship of Minors Bill. All these measures are intended to remove disabilities of women. Our immigration laws are now almost the only place in which we declare, in effect, that women are still a kind of chattel—that where they live, where they move, whether they are deported, depends not upon themselves or their choice or their behaviour but upon the simple fact of the domicile and the nationality of the men they happen to be married to. One does not need to read these rules in detail to see how incredibly obsolete their philosophy is about the equal treatment of the sexes—a philosophy looking more absurd month by month and year by year as the House clearly moves in a very different direction.
Some of my hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite have pointed to one of the most extreme tragedies involved in this distinction—the continued separation of the 300 Ugandan Asian


families. Hon. Members on this side recognise the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties. It is fair to say that we have not pushed him hard in the past. But he has now seen the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and has established what is the position in countries abroad, and we must ask him in how many cases among the 300 he has exercised the discretion he has given himself under the immigration rules to allow families to reunite in circumstances of hardship. How can there be much more severe circumstances of hardship than the death of a child in a family? Yet even in those circumstances we have not seen that family reunited.
I turn next to two perhaps more detailed matters, both of which seem to me to be important. One was dealt with by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). It concerns the possibility of the abuse of work vouchers. I do not need to tell the House that these have been abused, and badly abused in the past already. The story of what happened to the Philippino girls who went to Rochdale is not one of which the country can be proud, and the hon. Lady deserves some credit for having prevented, in her constituency, a repetition of what happened in Rochdale. Yet all the time, as a recent answer to a Parliamentary Question revealed, the number of work contracts going to these girls increases. They have doubled in the last year.
The Home Secretary must insist that until such time as the Employment Agencies Bill is passed to bring some regulation into this sphere we do not repeat here the worst features of the system of work contracts that exists in some countries. There is no doubt that many people on work vouchers are being exploited, misled and abused as a result of commercial transactions of a highly dubious kind. And it is wrong that in the case of the Philippino girls they have to repay—on a bond from a very low wage and on constant prices—the airline fare in such a way as to become virtually indentured labourers.
I ask, therefore, for the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that the Department of Employment will insist on proper standards of wages and conditions, and on no bonding, for people being brought here under a work voucher system, until

such time as the abuses by some employment agencies can be cleared up, because it is doing our good name no good at all.
There is also an anomaly in the visiting rules. The Home Secretary said that six months' visits would normally be allowed, and that where persons could indicate that they were bona fide visitors capable of paying for themselves there would normally—I think I am right in saying—be an extension. Many of us, alas, on this side—and no doubt some hon. Ladies and Gentlemen on the Government benches who have Indian and West Indian constituents, find that the rules of visiting seem curiously biased; that it is much easier for some people to visit this country than it is for others; that it is much easier for dependent relatives of some people in this country to come in than it is for the dependent relatives of others. I must again, therefore, ask the Under-Secretary whether the statement that the rules will be carried out without discrimination as to race, creed or religion is meaningful. Is there any form of appeal based on that statement, and, if so, to whom does it lie, and who will settle it? I am not satisfied that the rules are being administered without any form of discrimination.
I come now to what in many ways has been the crucial centre of the debate. The Home Secretary has said—and it was very fair to say—that Opposition Members should not be mealymouthed about it. I refer to the rather strange qualification that the right hon. Gentleman made on 25th January in respect of the position of United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa. I share with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) and various other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate a great respect for the Home Secretary's honour, and for the courage he showed over the Ugandan Asian issue. I regret having to press him on this matter, but I must, because the right hon. Gentleman himself volunteered a very disturbing statement—although I am glad to say that he has today once again reaffirmed this country's clear legal and moral obligations to its citizens in East Africa and elsewhere. I shall not press the right hon. Gentleman to give precise answers tonight, but I shall take very seriously his restatement of our obligations—obligations that he


could not have stated in clearer terms than he did to the Conservative Party Conference last October.
Because the Home Secretary is an honourable man, he will stand by that obligation, but I very much doubt his judgment when he made the statement he did on 25th January. Kenya has been relatively moderate in her imposition of an Africanisation policy. Her law was passed in 1967. Since then she has phased out the Asian British passport holders but she has not acted with the viciousness, violence and extremism that was shown by President Amin in Uganda. Yet I doubt whether the Home Secretary's statement helped in the very thing he wanted to achieve. The Nairobi Sunday Post commented that it was
a wholly unwarranted interference in Kenya's sovereign discretion".
Those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who were in Kenya then are bound to say that the reaction there was not favourable, that it looked as though matters would be made not better but worse by the right hon. Gentleman's statement.
Will the right hon. Gentleman now seek to repair the damage, in part—as he has done today—by reasserting our obligations before trying to discover the kind of support and assistance he would get from other countries, if this country shoulders its obligations as it must and will? At the time when the Ugandan Asians entered this country the Home Secretary said:
I want to emphasise that this international co-operation was possible only because the world saw Her Majesty's Government immediately and unequivocally accepting their responsibilities in this matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th October 1973; Vol. 843, c. 262.]
He was right when he said that. I believe that there will be the same international response if this country is seen to be accepting its moral and legal obligations in this matter.
I am as aware as any other hon. Member of the scale of the pressures that exist with regard to the settlement of immigrants. Many of my hon. Friends who have spoken, including my hon. Friends the Members for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) and Southall (Mr. Bidwell), are not unaware of the scale of the problems. But there are two things to say about them.
One was said very wisely by the right lion. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), whose remarks I commend to the House. It is that the way in which the House accepts its responsibilities will have a major effect on the way in which certain countries that are willing to assist us decide whether they can do so. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have just returned from India. It is clear that India understands our difficulties and is willing to help. But it is also clear that India will be greatly disillusioned if it appears that this country is not willing to accept its legal and moral obligations. She will accept a moral obligation to help, but she cannot relieve us of what are first and foremost obligations that we have, and that three successive Home Secretaries have accepted.
Secondly, there comes a point at which one cannot modify or compromise any further. I believe that we have reached that point. We must make a clear distinction between our responsibilities to those who are our citizens, whatever the colour of their skin—however much we call upon other countries to assist us, as I have no doubt they will—and our responsibilities, which are less, to those who are not our citizens. I repeat that many right hon. and hon. Members have found that it is not by constantly giving way that one necessarily best resists the pressures of racialism, that there comes a time when we must dig in, and then sometimes it is the racialists who begin to give way.

11.14 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): This has been a useful and constructive debate. I am only sorry that it will apparently end in a Division in a few minutes.
I shall cover as thoroughly as I can in the time available the many points that have been raised, some general and some detailed, and do my best, afterwards, to write to those hon. Members whose points I cannot cover.
The debate was opened by the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), but I need say no more about that than that the right hon. Gentleman built on his usual foundation of humbug a structure of exaggeration and distortion, and waved again the usual bogy we have


heard from him of a flood of entrants from the EEC. In this the right hon. Gentleman was wholly unrealistic, and he was well dealt with and shown up by my right hon. Friend.
During the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) I could not help feeling that if she were standing here carrying the responsibility of my right hon. Friend she would not be operating rules and procedures in any marked degree different from those we are commending to the House tonight.
We have mainly been discussing rules, but I stress that we attach just as much importance to the procedures by which the rules are operated, to their smooth working, and to their understanding. We are, as my right hon. Friend said on an earlier occasion, taking fresh steps to ensure that our procedures are well publicised overseas, particularly in countries where there may have been doubts and misunderstandings in the recent past.
I remind the House of the magnitude of the job that must be done by the immigration service. We make mistakes—I sometimes, my staff occasionally, immigration officers occasionally—but we have to deal with a total of more than 35 million individuals moving each year either in or out through our ports or airports. This movement is governed and controlled by no more than about 1,000 immigration officers. I pay tribute to the work they do, often in conditions of great difficulty.
Our control must be strict, sometimes even tough, but we are determined also that it shall be courteous and welcoming to all those who have the right of entry and who arrive in our midst, from wherever they come.
I want to reassure immigrants who are already settled in this country that they have no reason for apprehension as a result of the Act or of these rules, and their rights in this country are unaffected.
I come next to the question of United Kingdom passport holders. I have nothing in general to add to the very clear re-statement of our position which my right hon. Friend made earlier this evening. I will try to clear up one or two details I was asked, particularly by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and

Peebles (Mr. David Steel) about Tanzania. Last week the total number of United Kingdom passport holders in Tanzania in prison for any offence was seven. Vouchers are still being issued under the regular system for those people who come from Tanzania and we are watching developments very closely.
The hon. Gentleman also asked how long it would take to work through the United Kingdom passport holders in various East African countries. I cannot give a definite figure of years. It will obviously depend on the demand and the level of vouchers available at any one time. It may take very slightly longer than the time the hon. Gentleman had in mind.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) rightly reminded us of the crucial position of the Government of India. I acknowledge what he said. We are all grateful for the great help we have had from the Government of India over the last few difficult months. We are keeping their position very closely in mind.
Several hon. Members—perhaps more on this problem than on any other—have reminded us of the desperate human situation of the split Ugandan refugee families. The progress of resettlement in this country has now reached a point where there are fewer than 5,000 refugees left in the centres. That is a reflection of the good work and progress that has been done by the Uganda Resettlement Board and by local authorities, particularly those which have had to bear the brunt of the resettlement. The position on these few hundred split families is that we have been in touch for some time with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and his staff to see what more can be done to speed up the resettlement and the reunion of these families. All I can add tonight is that tomorrow morning my right hon. Friend is to have a meeting with the High Commissioner to review the latest position.
To come to the rules, the grandparent arrangement has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Hitchin, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). We felt that it was right to offer this new facility of entry to


acknowledge the close and recent family ties with a large number of people in Commonwealth countries. I know there has been criticism of moving to a different point the so-called line of discrimination among citizens of those countries. But the important thing is to offer this facility. I am certain that it will not be used on a large scale. There is no particular pressure from these countries, but we felt it was right to do this. If we find that the numbers coming in through this change in the rules are higher than we expect, as my right hon. Friend said when announcing them we shall not hesitate to change the rules and to explain what we are doing. We have said this from the start, and there is no mystery about it.
The position of dependants has been mentioned by my right hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton, South-West and Ashford. They are doubtful about the age limits under the present rules. They believe that the under-18 facility should be restricted to under-16. This system has been working since the control was established in 1962—when my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was a member of the Cabinet responsible—and in maintaining the same arrangement under these rules we shall apply the rules very strictly. The fringe dependants—the possibly bogus dependants—are one of the biggest headaches we have to cope with in immigration control, so we shall watch them particularly carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) mentioned au pair girls. We still believe the balance of advantage and disadvantage here is a narrow one. My right hon. Friend is looking at this whole matter with a fresh mind since he has taken over responsibility, and he and I will be pleased in the near future to discuss further my hon. Friend's proposal about the European agreement if she wishes to do so.
I will, of course, give the hon. Member for Hitchin the assurance for which she asks on work permits. In the particular cases and trades the hon. Lady is worried about the Department of Employment will watch closely how the work permit system is operating for women. We share her anxiety on this, and we shall be look-

ing carefully at it under the new arrangements.
The position of women under the rules has been referred to. We are not contemplating returning to the pre-1969 position, because there would be serious risk of the control being breached, just as it was before 1969, by men from Commonwealth countries marrying their way through the controls. The hon. Member for Hitchin acknowledged on 2nd February in the debate on the anti-Discrimination Bill that this was a common feature of immigration control systems virtually thoughout the world. It is not simply a British problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon asked what will be the position in future. In the case to which he referred there will be no difference from the previous rules unless the husband who wishes to come in has a grandparent who was born here; in that event he will be admitted under the new facility because his grandparent was born in this country. Aside from that, we will continue to look with compassion at the circumstances of these cases.
A number of questions were asked about working holidaymakers and visitors. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West asked whether the time that a working holidaymaker was here counted towards registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. It does count, but, as my right hon. Friend made clear when he answered his intervention, in future we have discretion to register or not. So we are entitled not to grant applications for registration if someone has merely been here for five years as a working holidaymaker and we feel there is not a fair case for him to be granted registration.
The hon. Member for Hitchin asked about visitors and discrimination. I assure her that there is no discrimination in judging applications for visitors. It is again a difficult part of the total control where evasion would be rife if we were not vigilant. There is a right of appeal against refusal of entry as a visitor. In exercising that right of appeal the individual could bring out anything that he or she wanted. If he or she felt that there had been discrimination that could be brought out as well.
I repeat, the paramount aim of our policy is that there should be no further large-scale permanent immigration. Overwhelmingly this is the wish of the country and it is now widely accepted in this House. The 1971 Act gives us the most effective and far-reaching control over immigration that any Government have ever had. We are determined to use this control to keep down to a tolerable level the numbers of new arrivals. The rules have to be strictly drawn so that the control will be effective—I stress this—at the points where the pressure is significant and to enable us to maintain a strong defence against those who seek to evade our control. The rules can and will be made still tighter if this proves necessary in the light of experience.
At the same time we realise the importance of our day-to-day procedures in administering control. We are dealing not with numbers, but with people. We shall look for ways of improving the procedures. We shall do our best to combine strictness with courtesy. We will continue, I hope, to apply these rules with compassion and understanding of people's individual circumstances.
I think that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are

agreed that there must be strict control and that it must be exercised without regard to race, colour or religion. Both sides of the House are committed to the maintenance of harmonious community relations in Britain, which is one of the purposes that immigration control is designed to serve. Nevertheless, the Opposition seem determined to divide the House. I believe that the argument they have advanced is inconsistent and unconvincing. The changes which they appear to advocate would, in our judgment, mean a loosening of control and would tend to increase the level of immigration.

In the revised rules we believe that we have struck the right balance between firmness and fairness, between strictness and humanity. I commend them on this basis and ask the House to reject the Opposition's motion.

Question put,
That the Statement of Immigration Rules for Control on Entry (H.C., 1972–73, No. 79), a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th January, be disapproved.

The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 283.

Division No. 63.]
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Dalyell, Tarn
Golding, John


Ashley, Jack
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Gourlay, Harry


Atkinson, Norman
Davidson, Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Barnes, Michael
Davies, G. Eifed (Rhondda, E.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Baxter, William
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Deakins, Eric
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hardy, Peter


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dempsey, James
Harper, Joseph


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dormand, J. D.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Booth, Albert
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Heaiey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Driberg, Tom
Heffer, Eric S.


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hooson, Emlyn


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dunn, James A.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dunnett, Jack
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Buchan, Norman
Eadie, Alex
Huckfield, Leslie


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Edelman, Maurice
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Cant, R. B.
Ellis, Tom
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Carmichael, Neil
English, Michael
Hunter, Adam


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Evans, Fred
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Ewing, Harry
Janner, Greville


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Faulds, Andrew
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Cohen, Stanley
Filch, Alan (Wigan)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Concannon, J. D.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Conlan, Bernard
Foot, Michael
John, Brynmor


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ford, Ben
Johnson, Carol (Lewlsham, S.)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Forrester, John
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Cronin, John
Galpern, Sir Myer
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Garrett, W. E.
Jones.Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)




Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silverman, Julius


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Murray, Ronald King
Skinner, Dennis


Judd, Frank
Oakes, Gordon
Small, William


Kaufman, Gerald
Ogden, Eric
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Kelley, Richard
O'Halloran, Michael
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Kerr, Russell
O'Malley, Brian
Spearing, Nigel


Kinnock, Neil
Oram, Bert
Spriggs, Leslie


Lambie, David
Orbach, Maurice
Slallard, A. W.


Lamborn, Harry
Orme, Stanley
Steel, David


Lamond, James
Oswald, Thomas
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Latham, Arthur
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Leadbitter, Ted
Padley, Walter
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Lestor, Miss Joan
Palmer, Arthur
Strang, Gavin


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Lipton, Marcus
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lomas, Kenneth
Pavitt, Laurie
Swain, Thomas


Loughlin, Charles
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff.W.)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Perry, Ernest G.
Tinn, James


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Torney, Tom


McBride, Neil
Prescott, John
Tuck, Raphael


McCartney, Hugh
Price, William (Rugby)
Varley, Eric G.


McGuire, Michael
Prober), Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin


Mackenzie, Gregor
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Mackie, John
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Maclennan, Robert
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wallace, George


McNamara, J. Kevin
Richard, Ivor
Watkins, David


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Weitzman, David


Marquand, David
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wellbeloved, James


Marsden, F.
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)
White James (Glasgow Pollok)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Whitlock, William


Mayhew, Christopher
Roper, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Meacher, Michael
Rose, Paul B.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mendelson, John
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Millan, Bruce
Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Sandelson, Neville
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Molloy, William
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Woof, Robert


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)



Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Moyle, Roland
Sillars, James
Mr. James Hamilton.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Churchill, W. S.
Fortescue, Tim


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Foster, Sir John


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fowler, Norman


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Clegg, Walter
Fox, Marcus


Astor, John
Cockeram, Eric
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Atkins, Humphrey
Cooke, Robert
Fry, Peter


Awdry, Daniel
Coombs, Derek
Gardner, Edward


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Cooper, A. E.
Gibson-Watt, David


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Cordle, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Bell, Ronald
Cormack, Patrick
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Costain, A. P.
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Crouch, David
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Benyon, W.
Crowder, F. P.
Goodhart, Philip


Berry, Hn. Anthony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gorst, John


Biffen, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj.-Gen.Jack
Gower, Raymond


Biggs-Davison, John
Dean, Paul
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Blaker, Peter
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Gray, Hamish


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Green, Alan


Body, Richard
Dixon, Piers
Grieve,Percy


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Grylls, Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Drayson, G. B.
Gummer, J. Selwyn


Braine, Sir Bernard
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hall, Miss Joan (Kelghley)


Bray, Ronald
Dykes, Hugh
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Emery, Peter
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Eyre, Reginald
Haselhurst, Alan


Buck, Antony
Farr, John
Hastings, Stephen


Burden, F. A.
Fell, Anthony
Havers, Sir Michael


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hayhoe, Barney


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fidler, Michae'
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Carlisle, Mark
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hempstead)
Heseltine, Michael


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fisher, Nigel (Surblton)
Hicks, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Higgins, Terence L.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hiley, Joseph







Hill, John E. B (Norfolk, S.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hill, Jamas (Southampton, Test)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Shersby, Michael


Holland, Philip
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Simeons, Charles


Holt, Miss Mary
Miacampbell, Norman
Sinclair, Sir George


Hordern, Peter
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire,W;
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hornby, Richard
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Moate, Roger
Soref, Harold


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Relgate)
Money, Ernle
Speed, Keith


Howell, David (Guildford)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Spence, John


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Sproat, lain


Hutchison, Michael Clark
More, Jasper
Stainton, Keith


Iremonger, T. L.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Morrison, Charles
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


James, David
Mudd, David
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Murton, Oscar
Sloddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Jessel, Toby
Nsave, Airey
Stokes, John


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Sutcliffe, John


Jopling, Michael
Nor man ton, Tom
Tapsell, Peter


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Nott, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow.Cathcart)


Keilett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Kimball, Marcus
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Tebbit, Norman


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Osborn, John



King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Temple, John M.


Kinsey, J. R.
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Kitson, Timothy
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Parkinson, Cecil
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Knox, David
Peel, Sir John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Lambton, Lord
Percival, Ian
Tilney, John


Lamont, Norman
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Trafford. Dr. Anthony


Lane, David
Pink, R. Bonner
Trew, Peter


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pounder, Rafton
Tugendhat, Christopher


Le Marchant, Spencer
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Waddington, David


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Walder, David (Cliiheroe)


Loveridge, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wall, Patrick


Luce, R. N.
Raison, Timothy
Walters, Dennis


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Ward, Dame Irene


MacArthur, Ian
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Warren, Kenneth


McCrindle, R. A.
Redmond, Robert
Weatherill, Bernard


McLaren, Martin
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rees-Davies, W. R.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


McMaster, Stanley
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wiggin, Jerry


Macmiilan.Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wilkinson, John


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Ridsdale, Julian
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maddan, Martin
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Madel, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Maginnls, John E.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Woodnutt, Mark


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Worsley, Marcus


Marten, Nell
Rost, Peter
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Mather, Carol
Royle, Anthony
Younger, Hn. George


Maude, Angus
St. John-Stevas, Norman



Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mawby, Ray
Scott, Nicholas
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Mr. Paul Hawkins.




Question accordingly negatived.


ADJOURNMENT


Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

BORSTAL INSTITUTION, FELTHAM

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Russell Kerr: I rise to draw attention to a serious situation which has arisen at Her Majesty's borstal institution at Feltham, in my constituency.
Originally, in Victorian times, the Felt-ham institution was set up as an industrial school, but in recent years it has become a dumping ground for the most difficult and disturbed type of young offenders—the ones with which other institutions find it quite impossible to deal. The official description of the place is
a training borstal with psychiatric unit attached.
More and more disturbed lads are being sent to Feltham. In the opinion of the staff it has become more or less a psychiatric institution, or, as one popular newspaper put it recently, "a nutters' borstal". But while the institution has been taking on these rather specialised characteristics, very little attempt seems to have been made by the Home Office to equip the place with staff adequately trained or sufficiently numerous to cope with this new and challenging situation. There has been almost a mass exodus of older and more experienced officers in the past few years. Their replacements have, for the most part, been very much younger recruits, most of whom have found themselves very much out of their depth when attempting to deal with the hardened young characters who find their way, frequently after a few stops elsewhere, to Feltham.
The situation is immeasurably worsened by the present overcrowding of the institution, which has been growing steadily worse over the past few years. All the officers to whom I have talked agree that the introduction of double bunks, as a consequence of overcrowding, has greatly increased tensions in the establishment, and discipline has steadily deteriorated to the point where many officers are obviously not coping at all.
During the past year, for example, there has been a substantial increase in the number of lads put on governor's report. As a means of ensuring discipline, this has largely become a bad joke.
With the failure to cope with special problems created by putting seriously disturbed lads into an institution inade-

quately equipped to handle them has come a quite frightening increase in violence, not merely among the inmates but towards the staff employed to supervise the lads. Inevitably, this has led to a serious deterioration in the all-important relationship between the inmates and their supervisors and to the erosion of that trust and understanding which alone can produce good out of what is all too frequently some fairly badly damaged raw material.
I wish to say a few words about the officers involved in the often thankless task of looking after lads committed to borstal. Along with many people of liberal views who want to see the punishment aspect of detention reduced, or even eliminated, and the reclamation aspect enhanced, I have not always been greatly impressed by the attitudes of prison officers who take on this very difficult task. Too often they have seemed to me to be dangerously narrow in their outlook, and seem more concerned to mete out punishment than to restore the inmates to a useful role in society.
However, during recent weeks I have had the opportunity of discussing their problems with a number of borstal officers from Feltham and elsewhere and I have been very impressed by their general attitude and their evident desire to help the lads in their charge to become good citizens. In effect, these officers are saying that there is too much slipshod permissiveness within Feltham Borstal at present, and that this, far from helping the lads by making their lives easier for them, is making it virtually imposible for the lads to be helped, because the trust and understanding which is the necessary prerequisite of successful reclamation work is in many instances almost totally lacking.
As one senior officer recently explained to me, it is vitally important to get to know each boy thoroughly by sharing his days throughout training. By intuition and sympathy one should seek to discover his point of view and his scale of values, to learn his likes and dislikes, what he fears or despises, his heroes and his devils. Only to a trusted supervisor will he voice his ambitions and his hopes. And only from such confidences can come understanding of what treatment is best suited to his needs and what will win his loyalty and not his defiance.
Unhappily, the recent history of Feltham Borstal suggests that the kind of environment in which this sensitive and important remedial work can take place has been almost totally lacking there. Overcrowding and inadequate staffing have been part of the explanation of this situation. So too, I fear, has been the style of management of the governor and his senior medical officer, Dr. Ellis. As a liberal all my life—a liberal with a small "1"—I am the last to call for tight, military-type discipline in a borstal or any other institution. More freedom, and not less, is what I want for people. But what has apparently been going on recently in Feltham, if Press reports and my own information from borstal officers are anything to go by, is deeply disturbing—and, more important, counter-productive in terms of helping the lads themselves.
Some people have complained publicly about the "hard porn" which, apparently, is the visual fare of many of the inmates. I have seen a selection of some of their so-called pin-ups, and I must freely admit, as a non-prude and un-hung-up Member of Parliament, I found some of the material breathtakingly obscene, and at least in my middle-aged view very much calculated to unsettle at least a minority of the young men in detention, some of them for crimes of a sexual nature. However, this may well be the famous generation gap rearing its uncomprehending head. So I pass quickly to the question of drug-taking at Feltham, which has already been the subject of considerable Press comment.
Judging from letters I have received from parents of Feltham Borstal inmates, drug-taking, including some hard drugs, has been on the Feltham scene for a considerable time. Borstal officers differ as to its extent, but there is more than enough evidence to merit the most careful inquiries by prison authorities or the Home Office. I urge that this, if nothing else, be done forthwith.
The other matter to which I should like to make passing reference is the publication last June of an inmates magazine called "Crack-Up", which advocated drug-taking, sex, violence, prostitution and even homosexuality all in one issue. The Home Office, when its attention was drawn to this, claimed that this was a

one-off illegal publication with only a few copies produced and distributed, but according to my information considerable numbers were produced and distributed.
However that may be, the point is that such material is hardly calculated to help the reclamation of already disturbed, frequently anti-social young men, and certainly makes the task of borstal officers immensely harder.
Without going into further detail—the hour is already late—I hope that I have indicated that all is not well at Feltham Borstal. The staff—a body of dedicated and sympathetic men, trying to do the near impossible—certainly deserve far better than they are getting. Leaving aside for a moment the question of overcrowding and inadequate staffing, it would seem that a thoroughgoing inquiry, preferably in public, is urgently needed in order that we may know what has gone wrong and how it may be put right. There is much else that I could have outlined tonight, but the important thing is that the Minister should not be fobbed off by people in his Department as on a previous occasion quite recently but should start with an open mind and a clean sheet of paper in order that an already intolerable situation, unfair alike to the borstal staff, the public and the lads, can be carefully investigated and a start made to correct a situation which is worrying to many of us.

11.52 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) for raising this matter tonight and for giving me an opportunity to say something about Feltham Borstal. I know and welcome the fact that he has recently had meetings with representatives of the Prison Officers Association, and should he wish to go around the borstal at Feltham, which I would certainly welcome, I will make all arrangements for him to be able to do so.
No one would suggest that from the point of view of the staff Feltham is in any way an easy establishment to run. It is, as the hon. Member said, a psychiatrically supported establishment for just over 300 young people between the ages of 15 and 21, a substantial proportion of whom are in need of full-time psychiatric treatment. It is the only borstal that


specialises in the problems of the psychiatrically disturbed, and it is run by a staff which I accept at once is regrettably under strength, but not more under strength than are our other establishments, though this of course is also unfortunate. There are two full-time doctors.
But, as the hon. Member said, we cannot look at Feltham purely in isolation, and it is bound to be affected severely by the overcrowding in the borstal system to which he has referred. Therefore, before I come to the comments he made about Feltham I want to say one or two things about the strain under which the whole system operates. The borstal system has shared in the rise in the number of offenders who have come into custody over recent years. The number of young men sentenced to borstal training was in 1967, for example, 5,012. By 1971 there was an increase of about 40 per cent., to 6,858. We are now undertaking the biggest ever prison building programme. Unfortunately, in spite of that, we have not been able to increase accommodation in borstals at anything like the same rate at which the borstal population has increased. That means that the borstal system is having to deal with greatly increased numbers in accommodation which was thought insufficient even for smaller numbers five or so years ago. In Feltham there is the greater difficulty that much of the accommodation is old-fashioned, unsatisfactory and Victorian, and designed originally for an entirely different purpose.
Again, we must realise that within that rise in the borstal population is included a higher proportion of the younger, more immature offenders and an increasing proportion of disturbed young people requiring full-time psychiatric care. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that latter group is a very difficult one for any service to treat and control. It demands skills and resources—particularly psychiatric resources—which are in short supply, whether within the prison department or in the country as a whole. Within that situation Feltham is really the only borstal that we have. A certain amount of psychiatric care is given at Rochester, but Feltham is virtually the only borstal where those resources can be provided.
Our immediate concern, within that picture, has been, overall, to ensure that those who are sentenced to borstal do not suffer unnecessarily from the effects of the pressure of numbers and overcrowding, and to avoid the delays in moving young men from local prisons to borstal allocation centres. We have also attempted to reduce the amount of overcrowding in borstals because it is difficult for constructive training to take place in overcrowded conditions. What we have not in the end been able to do—this relates to Feltham—is to avoid an increase in the number of young men whom the training borstals have had to receive and therefore some reduction in the time that they spend there. In Feltham this has meant that the number passing through has increased from 345 in 1967 to 494 in 1972. The average period spent in custody by those sent to Feltham has dropped in the meantime. Feltham has had to take new arrivals at weekly intervals instead of once a month, so as to accelerate its induction and to operate at a faster tempo generally.
To underline what the lion. Gentleman has said, the situation in which we are working at the moment is bound to impose further strains on borstals such as Feltham. I recognise that all these factors have placed a considerable strain on the staff, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to join me—as, indeed, he did at the end of his speech—in paying tribute to the way in which the staff have responded to these problems.
In Feltham they have had to take a large number of inmates, many of whom are in need of treatment from a psychotherapist and all of whom are there because, on assessment, it has been considered that they need to be sent to a borstal which has full-time medical and psychiatric facilities available. Some of them-61 last year—have been sent to Feltham from other borstals because they were in need of psychiatric care.
Faced with these problems, it is to the credit of the staff that the training, on the whole, is going well and that the success rate in Feltham is certainly as good as it is at any comparable other borstal establishment.

Mr. Kerr: Mr. Kerr indicated dissent.

Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head. It would be equally true to say that the failure rate is the same, but the fact remains that the success rate is, I am advised, as good as one would expect.
But what is more important, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, is that they are undertaking many adventurous training initiatives in Feltham, putting out inmates to work with the Community Service Volunteers and other groups of that kind. In the end it all comes down to the responsibility and dedication of the staff, and it depends entirely on the relationship which individual members of the staff can manage to create with individual trainees. I appreciate that they are understaffed. In the long run we shall help to solve the problems of Feltham only by providing more and better resources and more and better accommodation of the kind that is suitable for the type of offender going there.
I do not want to dwell on this now, as it was not dealt with by the hon. Gentleman, but he will know that we are in the process of building a new establishment at Glen Pava which is aimed to help to take the psychiatrically disturbed, among others, and there is a programme for rebuilding Feltham with a remand centre and assessment centre and a psychiatrically-aimed borstal.
The hon. Gentleman rightly dwelt on discipline within Feltham. I repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech—that the nature of the inmates and the number of disturbed people there makes discipline more difficult than at many other similar establishments.
I accept, as one must, that Feltham has had a large number of offences against discipline, but I have looked at the figures and I do not think that the numbers show that they are more than one would expect in a similar type of institution dealing with people of the same kind.
It is right to say that, although the proportion of inmates appearing on charge before the governor does not seem to be greater, they appear to commit more disciplinary offences per individual than at other similar borstals.
I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that although his information

is reasonably up to date, during the first few weeks of this year there has been a considerable drop in the number of people appearing before the governor on charges. He refers to that number, and it is high, but we must remember that the number of reports before the governor may depend on many circumstances, including the decision of the individual officer whether to refer a person to the governor or to the assistant governor, so that this may not be a complete mirror of the volume of disciplinary offences. I do not question the hon. Gentleman's words when he said that during last year the number of disciplinary offences was high.
The hon. Gentleman referred to drug offences. All I can say is that I have no evidence of drug taking of the kind he mentioned. I understand that any isolated incident of drug taking which comes to notice is firmly dealt with, and I shall be only too willing to listen to and examine any evidence which the hon. Gentleman may wish to give me about that.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to pornographic displays or pin-ups by the beds of inmates. I should make clear that the rules allow for a board on which the individual can pin photographs. They are mainly for family photographs, but he is allowed to have one pin-up. I am told that a pin-up is allowed only if it comes from a periodical which is on sale to the general public, and that the staff have instructions to bring to the governor's attention any which are felt to be unsuitable. Despite what the hon. Gentleman has said, I am advised that no such pin-ups have been brought to the governor's attention in recent months.

Mr. Kerr: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman take it from me that I have in my file on this case a quite impressive collection of pin-ups from magazines on public sale but which will scare the pants off him when he looks at them?

Mr. Carlisle: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the pin-ups that one sees on public sale, although I have to look upon them from under a different hat from that which I wear as being responsible for prisons. I am, saying, however, that nothing is allowed unless it is on sale publicly, and it is difficult, in a way, to say that those


allowed for public sale are inappropriate. But the staff have been instructed to bring to the governor's notice any which they feel to be unsuitable, and no such pin-ups have been brought to his notice recently. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will look at any evidence he has with regard to this matter.
I accept that Feltham is a difficult establishment in which to work. It shares staff shortages and shortcomings which are a feature of many parts of the penal system. It has had problems arising from the special character of its population. We have recognised those problems in the decision we have taken to provide a second training borstal which will specialise in the provision of psychiatric facilities, and in the decision to rebuild Feltham. We are doing what we can within the limitations of the penal system to make the task of the staff easier and to improve the quality of the training and treatment we give to the trainees.
I believe that there are some indications that the situation is improving. It depends on the loyalty and enthusiasm with which the staff carry out their difficult task. I know, having spoken to him, that the governor would very much welcome as much direct contact as he can have with the staff association, so that they can discuss together these difficult problems of maintaining discipline and providing the best form of training in an establishment which, by its very nature, contains many difficult and disturbed young people.
I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman will take up my offer to him to look again round the establishment, and that the staff association will feel free and able to discuss with the governor the problems and difficulties of the staff as they see them in dealing with individual trainees.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.